1951-04-06

COINAGE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies, in English and in French, of order in council No. 1608, dated April 4, 1951, under the Emergency Powers Act, authorizing the minting of a new coin of steel in chromium finish to the value of five cents to be issued on and after July 1, 1951, as a substitute for the further issue of the pure nickel coin.


Mr. Knowles:: What will it be worth?



TELECOMMUNICATION


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Pursuant to section 23 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act, I beg leave to table, in English and in French manuscript form, the annual report of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation for the calendar year 1950, together with the budget of the corporation for 1951.
(Translation):



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I wish to table copies in French and English of the report on Canada's share in the work of the United Nations pertaining to food and agriculture during the year ended March 31, 1951.
(Text):



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: I
should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon):
That the petition of "Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation" for an act to change the name of that company to "Community Finance Corporation,"
presented on April 4, 1951, together with the report made thereon by the clerk of petitions on April 5, 1951, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 192, to amend the Petition of Right Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The main purpose of the amendments to the Petition of Right Act which are proposed in this bill is to provide for the abolition of the governor general's fiat which is now required before a petition of right can be proceeded with.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 193, respecting weights and measures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the present Weights and Measures Act was passed, I believe, about 1873. The purpose of this bill is to bring the measures up to date, and particularly to bring the language of the act into conformity with the language used today. It is proposed that if and when the bill is given second reading it will be sent to a committee for detailed study.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Perhaps in his absence his parliamentary assistant could answer. Were the
1670	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry recent increases in civil service salaries awarded to all civil servants? If not, can the information be given as to what individuals, groups or classifications were not given the increase, and why?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that is a
question that should appear on the order paper. I do not think the Minister of Finance or his assistant could be expected to have an immediate answer for that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I did send notice, and an indication was given to me by the parliamentary assistant that he was prepared to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules of the house it is a question which should appear on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Has he any information as to the organizing activities reputedly being carried on by the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers at Yellowknife and Port Radium?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: The department and the minister have some information on the matter, yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can understand the minister may not wish to give that information now, but may I have a copy of it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I assure the hon. member that I did not intend to be discourteous. We have information on the subject, and I shall be glad to provide any information I feel is pertinent to what my hon. friend desires. It will be done early next week.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Have certain postal rates been increased, and some of them doubled? If so, why has parliament not been notified or consulted? How does this fit in with the economy program announced by the department?


Hon. Edouard Rinfrel (Postmaster General):: The hon. member for Selkirk was good enough to send me notice of his question about five minutes ago.


William Scottie Bryce: On a point of order, I sent it at eleven o'clock this morning.


An hon. Member:: By post?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Certain postal rates have been increased recently and have been duly announced in the Canada Gazette. The rates on circulars and printed matter have been increased. The old rate was one cent for each two ounces or fraction thereof. The increased rate is two cents for the first two ounces, and one cent for each additional two ounces or fraction thereof. This old rate had been in existence since 1904. The purpose of the increase has to do with the third question the hon. member asked, because it is part of the economy program of the department. First of all it is to be used to pay off the deficit that is being encountered at the present time by the department, to the extent of about $2,250,000 on the printed matter alone. It also has to do with the economy program, in that with this increased rate it is the estimate of the department that the amount of printed matter sent by mail will be decreased by approximately twenty-five per cent, and to that extent the letter carriers will be relieved of the loads they have to carry at the present time.
The second increase that has been made is in connection with parcel post rates. This is a quite complicated matter, and has already been announced in the Canada Gazette. The third increase that has been made recently is in registration fees. They have been increased from 10 cents to 20 cents on the first $25 indemnity, and a relative increase over that amount. The average cost of registration in Canada at the present time is 23 cents. We were losing money on each one of those registrations in the lower denominations.
The hon. member's second question was as to why parliament had not been notified or consulted. According to section 7(e) of the Post Office Act, the Postmaster General has the discretion to fix the rates on all mailable matter except first-class mail, newspapers, magazines and the like. The reason, I imagine, for this discretion being given to the Postmaster General is that in connection with first-class mail, newspapers and magazines the postal department has a complete monopoly, whereas in connection with other matters, such as circulars and registration fees, parcel post and the like, we are in competition with other companies doing a similar business, and we have to have authority to act quickly if a condition develops that requires speedy action.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to thank the
minister for his answer, and to congratulate him upon the remarkably fine job he did in five minutes.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Leihbridge):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) or some other member of the government, notice of which I have not previously given. Considering the rapid increase in the cost of living since the last budget was presented in 1950, would the government seriously take into consideration a proposal to grant a cost of living bonus to old age pensioners, in an endeavour to restore to them the purchasing power they had a few years ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The government can take notice of the question, but I do not think a reply should be given at this time.



PRICE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have sent notice of a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). In his absence I would ask for an answer from the Minister of Justice. My question arises from a recent report in the Winnipeg Free Press in which the Minister of Justice is reported to have predicted ruthless remedies to deal with inflationary prices, similar to those used in the second world war. I would ask if this means that the government is considering price controls?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers was a not completely successful attempt on the part of the reporter to condense a longer statement I had made, and does not fully represent my views, which I shall have no hesitation in repeating on the proper occasion during the course of debates in the house.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Public Works can answer the question which I asked yesterday, as reported on page 1646 of Hansard?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I read the hon.
member's question before coming into the house. First, the hon. member wishes to know if the government will be purchasing a building in London for the use of the income tax division. The answer is yes. On March 21 parliament approved a vote to provide for this purchase. Next the hon. member states that the city of London will lose a certain amount of taxes because of this transaction, and he asks if the government will make provision to compensate the city. The city will be treated with the same generosity as other cities in Canada are treated which have government properties valued at more than four per cent of the total assessment value of the city or town.
The hon. member then went on to make a statement which is not according to the facts. The option to purchase is for $600,000, and the $550,000 which the hon. gentleman mentioned was for the building under construction to which we requested an extension to increase the space and on which we got an option of $600,000. Then the hon. member made another statement which was not correct. The option does not expire after ten years; it expires at the end of this year.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion that question should have appeared on the order paper. However, the question was allowed to stand and for that reason I have allowed the answer. When questions of this kind are to be asked I would ask hon. members to place them on the order paper.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to modify its application with reference to the last quarter of the year 1950 and to extend the application of the act in a modified form to the year 1951.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a brief statement.
I hold that a healthy gold industry in Canada means a healthy mining industry as a whole. The search for commercial base metals and strategic minerals can most effectively and economically be carried on with the search for gold. In other words,

Gold Mining
gold mining is the stimulus which provides encouragement to search for new mineral wealth.
Much of Canada's future growth is bound up in the development and colonization of our northern country; and gold mining is the pioneer industry in opening northern Canada for development. The gold mines give employment to about 23,000 people, in addition to employees in dependent communities directly supported by them. They give further employment to large numbers in the cities and towns across Canada where mining machinery and supplies are manufactured. Our Canadian gold production provides a supply of ready foreign exchange with no marketing problem, and Canada is known among the trading nations of the world as one of the important producers of the precious metal. Gold mining is a truly Canadian venture and Canadian people control the majority of the mines.
All these facts were no doubt in the mind of the Canadian government when the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was first enacted in 1948. Its purpose was to assist the Canadian gold mine operators in restoring normal operations and in meeting the greatly increased costs of production while facing a fixed price for the industry's product. It was under these conditions that what has been termed the "cost-aid" program was commenced for a three-year period to cover the calendar years 1948, 1949 and 1950. This "cost-aid" program has definitely assisted the mines in meeting the increased costs of production and in restoring efficiency in their operations, which efficiency had been greatly impaired by the labour shortages and material restrictions of the war years.
However, throughout the years 1948, 1949 and 1950 the cost of production of gold continued to increase, and in the fall of 1950, following representations made by the gold mining industry, and after consultations with the international monetary fund, the government decided to recommend to parliament the continuance of the "cost-aid" program for another year.
The bill which it is now proposed to introduce in this house has a double purpose. The first is to provide for additional assistance covering gold produced and sold during the last quarter of 1950, to compensate for the decreased premium on the Canadian dollar. The second and most important purpose of the bill is to extend to the calendar year 1951, on a revised basis, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
It is expected that the "cost-aid" to be distributed to the gold mines in 1951 by

virtue of the amended act will amount to something between ten and eleven million dollars.
The hope is hereby expressed that the new program of assistance will help the gold mines to meet the continuing high costs of production, and that consequently these mines will not fail the northern communities which they.have been instrumental in setting up and which now depend wholly or largely upon the mines for survival.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, this is the first bill which the minister has introduced since he attained cabinet rank. May I take advantage of this occasion to say that I am sure there is no member of the government who commands a greater measure of good will among members in all parts of the house than the minister who has just introduced the resolution.
The resolution before the house impresses us at once with its limited nature. It reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to modify its application with reference to the last quarter of the year 1950 and to extend the application of the act in a modified form to the year 1951.
One cannot read those words without being impressed by the temporary nature of this measure which is re-emphasized by the resolution. The limited scope of the legislation is foreshadowed by the resolution. Apparently we are still thinking in terms of an emergency which is to be dealt with on a session-to-session basis.
I was glad to hear the minister stress the importance of the gold mining industry to innumerable communities in various parts of Canada. The minister stated that 23,000 persons are directly engaged in the gold mining industry, and I think it is fair to state that the number of persons who indirectly derive a livelihood from the operations of the gold mines is not less than 100,000.
In the days gone by also the gold mining industry has played a vital role in maintaining the economy of Canada. Those who remember the unhappy history of depression days will not have forgotten what the health of the gold mining industry in those days meant, not only to the communities adjacent to the mines, but also in providing employment in industrial areas and markets for agricultural producers in all parts of Canada.
It seems to me that there has not been in this house the recognition of the importance of this industry that it deserved. In July, 1949, Dr. Charles Camsell, the former deputy minister of mines and resources, had this to

say about the Canadian gold mining industry in a notable speech he delivered at Oxford, England. I refer to a Canadian Press dispatch of his speech reporting him as saying:
Many of Canada's legislators do not appreciate to what extent gold has been responsible for the development of Canada.
The report continues:
"The influence of gold on our Canadian economy has been vastly greater than mere production statistics would indicate," Camsell said in the paper.
A casual trip through the belt extending through northern Ontario and Quebec revealed the influence of gold deposits in developing the country and making it possible for permanent industry or agriculture to "live and thrive." Canada today needed strong mining industry more than ever before, particularly for strategic reasons. "Our production in 1948 was the greatest in our history."
I point out he is speaking of our total mineral production. He went on to conclude:
I know of nothing that will take any considerable body of population into that country-
He is speaking there of the Northwest Territories.
-except the lure of gold or some other mineral such as uranium.
Therefore I hope that in speaking on this subject this afternoon, and drawing attention to the importance of the gold mining industry and the importance to all of Canada and to people in all walks of life in Canada of the health of that industry, we shall not hear such flippant remarks as have been made sometimes in this house about serving the interests of the Toronto stock exchange and things of that kind. Let us be honest enough and realistic enough to recognize the vital importance of the gold mining industry in Canada for all Canadians.
It seems to me that the minister might have gone further and spoken of the difficulties which confront the gold mining industry today. I think it is not unfair to describe these difficulties in terms of the plight of that industry today. The minister of mines of the province of Ontario, the Hon. Welland Gemmell, said in the legislature of Ontario on February 26 of this year, as reported in the Globe and Mail of February 27:
Unless the federal government takes a realistic attitude toward gold, communities such as Kirkland Lake, Timmins, Red Lake and1 Geraldton face a serious and precarious future, mines minister Gemmell, member for Sudbury, told the legislature yesterday.
Without going into details as to what the dominion should do the minister said, "I fervently hope the near future will bring good news from the standpoint of the yellow metal."
The minister of mines of Ontario was looking forward there to an announcement from the federal government as to legislation
Gold Mining
that was to be introduced at the present session, and I am afraid that the legislation foreshadowed by the resolution now under discussion will be received with very great disappointment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had accurate words to describe the plight of the gold mining industry as he found it in June of 1949 during the election campaign, because in a speech at Timmins he described conditions in that gold mining community in these words: "The grim shadow of mine shutdowns that has been hanging over many gold mining properties". That was the way he described the condition. Then he went on to indicate what the present act, as it stood on the statute book in 1948, had accomplished by way of assistance to meet the situation; but he also admitted the inadequacy of the legislation because he then foreshadowed further assistance to gold, which, as hon. members will recall, was introduced in the fall of that year at the second session of 1949. Here are his further words from his speech at Timmins:
Many gold mines in Canada now are just staggering along because they are being squeezed between the fixed price of gold, $35 an ounce, and the high cost of production per ounce of gold recovered.
These words of the Prime Minister in June, 1949, can be just as accurately applied to conditions today. The fundamental problem confronting gold production in Canada today is, as indicated by the Prime Minister in that last quotation, that while costs of production have been advancing with very great rapidity and unhappy results, the price at which producers may sell their product is fixed. It is set by the government. It is not simply set by the government; it is actually tied down by the government through international agreement.
Rising costs have affected every mine, regardless of the stage of production or development. Mine development costs, mine production costs, have risen with startling effect. I am sure I do not need to say to this house that very often the narrowest kind of margin between the cost of production on the one hand and the sale price of the product on the other means the difference between turning ore into useless rock or vice versa, turning otherwise useless rock into what may be valuable ore. The position is just as simple as that.
In the extract I read the Prime Minister mentioned that the fixed price of gold at that time was $35 per ounce. You will remember, sir, that was the price fixed by the United
1G74

Gold Mining
States. That was an established United States price which found its way into international agreement when various nations entered into the Bretton Woods agreement. After devaluation of the Canadian dollar on September 20, 1949, the price in terms of the Canadian dollar was advanced by 10 per cent to $38.50, and some little benefit was enjoyed by the gold mines in consequence. But then you will remember that it was only a few months later that the government decided to set the gold mines back exactly where they had been, by reducing by an equivalent amount, namely, $3.50 per ounce, the maximum assistance allowed under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Therefore in that respect the mines were put back in the position they had been in prior to devaluation.
I should like to say a word about the history of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, and I wish to be quite fair about it. The bill was introduced first in 1948, to assist the gold mines to overcome difficulties which at that time had become almost insuperable. The government was slow to act. The threatening situation confronting gold production in Canada had been laid before the government repeatedly in previous sessions. They moved at last in 1948. I think it is fair to say that the measure never promised to do more than render some assistance. It was never looked upon by the government as anything more than emergency legislation to contribute for a very limited period, because the period has always been limited by statute. We have literally been extending on a year-to-year basis the kind of limited assistance which the act offered.
The report of the administration of this act for the fiscal period ended March 31, 1950, had this to say in general terms in its opening paragraph:
The purpose of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was to assist Canadian gold mine operators in meeting the greatly increased costs of production of gold for which, unlike all other primary mine products, there had been no compensating increase in the price. It was designed primarily to assist the high-cost or marginal mines to continue in operation over a difficult period and also to enable such mines to continue to maintain their dependent communities.
I read that, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that the purpose of this act was not simply to assist persons who might have had the fortune or misfortune to hold gold mining stocks. It was put forward to give some limited assistance to the industry because of the great benefits that industry brings to all
TMr. Fleming.]
Canada, and particularly to enable those gold mines to continue to maintain their dependent communities.
What has been accomplished under this act? Well, the accomplishments are limited. Assistance has been given; and to the extent of that assistance the act has been helpful. I make no attempt to deny that the legislation has been helpful as far as it has gone. With all its limitations, with all its imperfections, the act has been of assistance. For instance, in the first year of operation, 111 mines received assistance. It is perhaps significant that in the following year, 1949, the number of mines assisted dropped to 95. The report for the year ended March 31, 1951, has not yet been issued, so we do not know the total number of mines assisted in 1950. The minister did not give us that information this afternoon, but it would be interesting to learn whether that downward trend has continued or has been reversed.
In terms of amounts paid out under this act the situation is not dissimilar. In 1948 the amount of assistance provided under this act, in round figures, was $10 million. In 1949, again in round figures, it was between $12 and $13 million; and today the minister indicated that in 1950 the amount of assistance had dropped to between $10 and $11 million.
At this point I think it is fair to comment that the burden imposed on the public treasury in consequence of this act has not been very great. When you consider how readily parliament has been voting large sums of money to assist others, it seems to me that an average of $11 million over a three-year period is at most a very limited amount of assistance to an industry of such great importance to the economic welfare of all Canada.
The act has had this further drawback, that its operation has been tied to a very complicated formula. In its effect it has been quite artificial. I do not care how ingeniously the draftsmen of such legislation apply their intelligence in an endeavour to work out formulae that may be fair in their general application throughout the whole industry, I do not consider it possible for legislation of this kind to be fair to all types of mines and all types of properties under development.
In fairness to this act, let us recognize that the production of gold has increased during the period of its operation. The amount of gold produced in Canada from gold mines only, not including gold produced by base metal mines, in 1948 was 3,159,934 ounces, which represented a welcome increase over

the previous year. In 1949 gold production in Canada increased to 3,673,971 ounces from gold mines alone, and 4,123,518 including gold produced by base metal mines; and in 1950, according to a recent bulletin issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, Canada's gold production from all mines amounted to 4,448,396 fine ounces, an increase of eight per cent over the previous year. We will all welcome those increases. We will all acknowledge that this act has played some part in bringing them about. That is not to say, however, that the act is perfect or that parliament should simply stop with the enactment of amendments to it in such limited terms as are foreshadowed in the resolution now under debate.
Now may I say a word directly about this proposed amendment. We observe that it proposes simply to continue the present act for a limited period. The amendment is to modify the application of the act for the last quarter of 1950 and extend its application in a modified form to the year 1951. We have had very little indication of what the modification is to be; but again, like its predecessors in the past three sessions, this must be considered simply stop-gap, temporary legislation. Having regard to the very serious difficulties confronting the gold mining industry today; having regard, as we must have regard, to the sacrifices that are being imposed upon the gold mining industry by deliberate government policy, I think we can only regard this measure as disappointing and inadequate. Obviously it intends to continue all the present artificiality and uncertainty of government policy with respect to this important industry. We have seen changes made from year to year in the method of application, the extent of assistance or the basis of that assistance under this act. Today no gold mining operator in Canada knows what government policy in this respect is going to be at the conclusion of this calendar year. How is the gold mining industry to build for the future; how is it to expand, if it is to be confronted with all the uncertainties as to government policy and future assistance attendant upon legislation so temporary in character as that now before the house?
Again we are being asked to look at this problem as simply a temporary emergency. Apparently it is the idea of the government that the needs of the industry should be met on a hand-to-mouth basis. Where longterm policies on the part of the government and parliament are needed today, we are simply offered short-term, hand-to-mouth, stop-gap legislation.
Gold Mining
In considering the position of gold and the industry, we must have regard to recent international events. Probably the most striking development in connection with gold in the past year has been the reversal in the movement of gold with respect to the United States. There has been a reversal of the trend which had been in effect for years when the United States was, year by year, a big net importer of gold. Within the past year the United States has been transferred into an exporter of gold. That is apparently largely the result of the improvement in the economies and trade of some of the nations abroad with whom the United States has been trading. It is due in no small measure to the policy of the United States government in stockpiling materials that can only be purchased abroad.
Another fact of very great consequence amongst international events during the past year has been the firm position taken by the government of South Africa to protect the gold mining industry in that great country. You will remember, sir, that last May the government of South Africa announced it was no longer going to be bound to sell its gold at the price fixed by the international monetary fund, the agency established for this purpose under the Bretton Woods agreement. The statement made in the parliament of South Africa by the minister of finance, Mr. Havenga, is reported by the Associated Press, in a dispatch from Capetown dated May 5, 1950, as follows:
South Africa has reserved the right to sell its gold at the highest price it can get in the world's free markets contrary to the wishes of the international monetary fund.
N. C. Havenga, finance minister in a strong statement to parliament tonight, expressed the nationalist government's dissatisfaction with the board of directors of the fund. Wednesday the board rejected a South African proposal that gold producers be permitted to sell half their output in free markets at the best price obtainable above the fixed monetary price of $35 an ounce.
The United States strongly opposed the South African proposal to the monetary fund. Havenga in parliament said the United States was the most outstanding example of countries which had conformed to monetary fund policy when it suited its convenience.
Now, sir, the South African government has indicated it is no longer going to impose upon the producers of gold in that country the sacrifices which would be exacted of them by a continuation of the fixed price of gold at $35 an ounce, U.S., under the international monetary fund. Important consequences have followed from that firm action on the part of the government of South Africa. In the International Financial News Survey, the bulletin issued by the international monetary


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope it will not be long, because I am worried about my time.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not suppose the hon. member has time to elaborate in answering this question. Does he honestly believe that if Russia had accepted the stipulation of the international monetary fund, conditions would have been any different from what they are?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That question assumes something so radically different from the course of events that I do not believe any man could do more than say he might speculate as to what the results might have been had Russia's course been different. No one can speak with certainty on that subject. My opinion may be worth very little, but I shall give it to my hon. friend for what it is worth. If Russia had come in and played the game with the other nations of the world, fairly and honestly, in a spirit of co-operation and in an attempt to build international trade and settled international relations, I believe there would have been every good reason for hoping that an agreement of this kind could

be expected to succeed. I will cling to that hope, even though my friends at the time held a different view.


Mr. Low:: The triumph of hope over
experience.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am prepared, in the light of subsequent experience, to say, whether my friends were right at the time or whether they were not, that the situation today is radically changed, one might fairly say almost fundamentally changed, from the conditions that we assumed in 1945 when we readily entered into this agreement.


John Horne Blackmore: "Assumed" is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, we are acting on assumptions all the time. I think the people of Canada acted a bit on assumption in June, 1949, for instance.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, I think in addition that we underestimated at that time the place, the high importance, the almost necessary position, of gold in facilitating the trade of the world; and we certainly had no expectation at that time that trading conditions would be bedevilled and defeated by the erection of this iron curtain, by aggression and machinations on the part of the tyrants in the Kremlin.
I wish to make one or two further brief observations, sir, about the way in which this agreement has worked out. It is not unfair, I think, to say that the policy of the international monetary fund has been largely dominated by the United States. It has been influenced to a considerable extent also by policy of the government of the United Kingdom. I do not believe any one of us can think that Canadian interests have played a very important part in the shaping of policy on the part of the international monetary fund. Canada is a producer. Its net position is overwhelmingly on the production side. The United States' net position has been, with the exception of the past year, that of an importer. Great Britain has been historically an importer of gold.
Now, how can you reconcile the fundamental divergence of interests of these nations under a scheme such as this? I think one result has been, sir, to shackle a very important arm of Canadian production. Another has been pressure on certain forms of the Canadian economy, and the introduction of further measures of artificiality in a situation that we had already made artificial by national and international policy in 1945.
I believe the time has come, sir, when parliament must re-examine the whole position of gold and the price of gold. I believe
Gold Mining
Canada must ask herself, and we in this House of Commons must ask ourselves: are we interested in obtaining a better price for our product?-because we are not obtaining for it today the value of it. We are selling it below the price that it would bring us if those shackles imposed by national and international policy were struck off.
In reviewing and re-examining Canada's interest in this issue, please do not misunderstand me; I am not taking a narrow view in measuring where our interest lies. I am not saying that simply because the price of gold in the free market of the world is considerably higher than the fixed price at which we are compelled to sell to the Royal Canadian Mint or for export, that alone must determine all the details of Canadian national policy. But I think we must give due weight to those facts.
Now, there are two further factors, which are deserving of consideration. I am always conscious of the fact, sir, as I am sure all members of this house are, that in any aspect of our economic life where we are brought into close contact with the United States, we must not take a narrow view of the particular issue. We must weigh it against the benefit of those broad measures of co-operation between this country and the United States which are not only the hope of this continent, but to a very large extent underwrite the hopes of the whole world; therefore, sir, I am not proposing that we proceed in any aggressive or shortsighted manner in this respect. But I do wish to be sure that Canadian interests in a matter of this kind, closely related as we are to the United States, and suffering as we are today by reason of the supremacy of the United States' interest in the administration of the international monetary fund-I want to be sure that sacrifices are not being imposed unfairly on some particular branch of Canadian production. It seems to me the case is unanswerable that unfair sacrifices are being imposed upon the Canadian gold mining industry; and when we are importing inflation from the United States, I wonder whether it would not be justifiable on our part to try to better our position by getting a better price for this important product of ours when it is sold to the big and friendly importer to the south of us.
Why should the Canadian gold mining industry be made to pay the price-and a heavy price it is-for national and international policy, particularly when, as it seems to me, sir, we must open our eyes and see that these policies are defeating their rightful purpose and must be re-examined and revised?

Gold Mining
The other question is this. We must take into account in all fairness the possibility of inflation in Canada in consequence of an increase in the price of gold. Now, sir, there are many who associate the idea of an increase in the general price level with an increase in the price of gold. That idea probably dates back to the early 1930's, when President Roosevelt increased the price of gold as a means of trying to counteract the strong deflationary influences at work at that time in the United States. But, sir, who can stand in this house today and contend that to permit the Canadian gold production to earn more money for Canada is going to have an inflationary effect on the Canadian economy? I say, sir, that there is no one who can argue that proposition with any confidence. I do not believe there is proof available to anyone that an increase today in the price of Canadian gold would have an inflationary effect on the level of general commodity prices in Canada. On the other hand, I can think of a great deal of benefit that would result from an increase in the price of gold we export, and the way in which the consequent results can be applied to counteract the importation of inflation into this country from the United States.
Sir, I think the direction in which we must move in Canada today is toward greater freedom in trying to enable gold to yield its fair value in the markets of the world. Bear in mind that I am not for one minute saying -and I am trying to make this abundantly clear-that we should just cut loose from the international monetary fund, or that we should ignore our commitments there, or that we should proceed without due regard to the broad question of our relations with the United States or to other aspects of the effect of such measures on our economy. But, sir, I say that the case, on balance, is overwhelming for a substantial movement at the present time in the direction of a freer market for Canadian gold. And as long as we are going to have agreements such as the international monetary fund shackling an important wing of the Canadian economy it seems to me that the duty of this parliament is clear, namely, to face courageously and honestly the limitations, the drawbacks, the weaknesses, the handicaps of the international monetary fund, and address ourselves to seeking a correction and amendment of them.
I do not think for one moment that we can any longer submit to a mere continuation of the present structure and policy of the international monetary fund. Unless there is some change in the price of gold at which we may sell our production in the markets of the world, then it seems to me that we must

pound on the doors of the international monetary fund, and of those responsible for its administration. And unless there is some change in their policy, then I think this parliament must be prepared to take action.
I hope the house will not fail to recognize the importance of gold both in our economy and as the means of exchange throughout the world. Gold is still what it has been for a long time, the universally accepted medium of international exchange. It is still sought by all the nations of the world today, and not least of all by Russia herself. There have been times in recent years when the United States dollar undertook to challenge gold as the accepted medium of international exchange. Sir, I think that time is past, when we see today the way in which inflation has weakened the value of the United States dollar, and the way in which gold has been moving in the net position away from the United States.
Let me say further that I think it is high time the foreign exchange control board re-examined its holdings in its reserves. I think it is high time that due regard should be had by the board for the fact that the United States dollar has not the value it had before, either in terms of its intrinsic purchasing power or in terms of the prestige and confidence attached to it in the world. I think the time has come when the reserves of the foreign exchange control board, to a degree far greater than has been the fact hitherto, should take the form of gold and not United States dollars. I think the time has come when, on the part of those administering the foreign exchange control board in this country, there has to be a recognition of the importance of building up those reserves in the form of gold rather than in United States dollars.
If we are going to cling to any hope of re-establishing the kind of world to which we looked forward in 1945, we must have regard to the place of gold as a means of assisting the convertibility of currencies, with all the attendant benefits that has for the trade of the world, and in particular for a country like Canada which has trading relations with the two great trading blocs in the world, the sterling bloc and the dollar bloc.
Lastly, I hope the government will not deny to the house the opportunity of reviewing the whole of our national policy with respect to gold. Those who sat in the committee on banking and commerce in the fall of 1945 will never forget the importance of those hearings, and the way in which

members of parliament informed themselves, with, of course, considerable assistance from Mr. Louis Rasminsky, a very distinguished Canadian economist, whom we all respect. That was five and a half years ago: conditions have changed vastly since that time. I hope an opportunity will be afforded, through the medium of a committee like our committee on banking and commerce, to review the matter in detail, and with all the evidence that is required or relevant before us, so that we may review and re-examine the whole question of international and national policy with respect to gold.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has rendered a distinct service to the people of Canada and the House of Commons in his remarks this afternoon. So far as I know this is the first time since 1945, when the Canadian parliament in a fit of complete hysteria allowed itself to be precipitated into the Bretton Woods agreement, that any member of parliament, other than Social Credit "cranks", has undertaken to call in question the validity of the Bretton Woods agreement. The hon. member has not meant to call in question the validity of that agreement; he has simply undertaken to show the house and country how the agreement just cannot possibly work to the advantage of Canada, or any other nation in the world except the United States.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house and the people of Canada the absolutely preposterous position in which the Canadian parliament now finds itself. First I would read the innocent little resolution we are now debating:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to modify its application with reference to the last quarter of the year 1950 and to extend the application of the act in a modified form to the year 1951.
I would say in a general way that if parliament does not have complete authority to pass that resolution, then it has abdicated its power to be a sovereign parliament of a sovereign nation like Canada. That must be obvious, without further argument.
Yet the minister, when introducing the resolution, used these words, if my memory serves me correctly, "that after consultation with the international monetary fund the government decided to recommend to parliament a continuance of the cost-debt program for another year."
I take it that this means that the government would hardly dare introduce this measure without the consent of the international monetary fund. Hon. members may reflect
Gold Mining
upon these facts themselves. Take those facts in the light of the observations so ably expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton, and then meditate upon the condition of affairs in which we find ourselves. I do not propose to speak in any extended fashion in the matter this afternoon. I shall merely make this observation, based upon the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton and of the minister, that each of these hon. gentlemen has undertaken to say that the welfare of the whole mining industry of Canada is in large measure involved with the welfare of the gold mining industry.
What does that mean? It means that without the consent of the international monetary fund this country is unable to take measures designed to benefit the mining industry, which is one of the major industries of the nation.
May I say a word or two with reference to the question I asked the hon. member for Eglinton. Perhaps it was a mean question to ask a man who was speaking on the subject to which the hon. member was then directing his remarks. But I felt it was a question that ought to be asked of a gentleman as learned as the hon. member for Eglinton, and as able as he has shown himself to be during the years of his sojourn in parliament.
One of the assumptions the house adopted was that the international monetary fund and the bank for international settlements would somehow aid in the convertibility of currency in the world. To a person adequately informed regarding the fundamental principles of international trade and the international convertibility of currency; and likewise moderately informed concerning the restrictions and regulations in the Bretton Woods agreement, the assumption that that agreement could in any way, even in the remotest degree, aid in the international convertibility of currency, is utterly preposterous.
Members of this group laid down the fundamental principles time and again in December of 1945. I challenged any man in the Dominion of Canada, inside this house or out, to point to a single flaw in the fundamental reasoning of the Social Credit group on that occasion. Every principle was absolutely sound and in accordance with the best information concerning international trade and international convertibility of currencies. In effect we laid down this principle-I am going to illustrate it by citing an experience this country has had-that it is utterly impossible to make British pounds convertible into United States dollars unless the United States are prepared to accept a sufficient amount of British goods to render the moneys of the two countries equivalent in value. It is the

Gold Mining
acceptance of goods and the selling of goods that governs the value of world currencies.
As this group indicated, and as hon. members fully know, the United States is the most powerful factor in world economy today, largely because of her tremendous population, her tremendous productive potential and the near approach she is capable of to selfsufficiency. When a nation is self-sufficient or nearly so it does not need to take in foreign goods. All it needs to be concerned with is selling its own goods. We laid down the principle time and time again that the primary concern of the United States administration in seeking to obtain general acceptance of Bretton Woods was to enable the United States to sell her goods in the world markets. That fact remains incontrovertible today.
Will anyone tell us how in the world the acceptance of Bretton Woods can contribute in the slightest degree to the convertibility of British pounds into United States dollars? Where is the stipulation in Bretton Woods which would so operate? The world has been afflicted by what I would almost call a tragic shortage of United States dollars ever since the Bretton Woods agreement was accepted, and that alone is incontrovertible evidence of the truth of what I am saying.
I should like to say a brief word regarding inflation. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in that jaunty way of his made a remark to the effect that this inflation was a world phenomenon. Of course it is a world phenomenon. I believe I shall ask the Minister of Finance before we finish this session to show why there is a world phenomenon of inflation and to show to what extent the Bretton Woods agreement has contributed to that world phenomenon. In fact I may ask him to show where we should be wrong in assuming that the Bretton Woods agreement is a major factor in the production of worldwide inflation.
Before I close I should like to make this general comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). He was not in the chamber when I paid him a compliment a minute or two ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was listening from behind the curtains and I appreciate the hon. member's remarks very much. I do not get many compliments.


John Horne Blackmore: I told the hon. member for Eglinton at the time of the Bretton Woods debate, in the banking and commerce committee and in the corridors of this building, that he was capable of understanding these matters as a great many members of this
(Mr. Blackmore.]
house apparently were not, and that therefore there rested upon him a considerable measure of responsibility in taking the position which he should take on the question of Bretton Woods. His remarks this afternoon indicate that my estimate of him was justified. All he needs to do is to go forward and keep the fundamental principle in mind that it is impossible to have convertibility of currencies unless there is a free and adequate interchange of goods and services.
The United States absolutely will not accept any more goods than she needs. Any goods that come into that country and which compete with goods produced by the people of the United States will be shut out ultimately. When she is in position to almost completely support herself, except in time of war, what conceivable reason can there be for believing that she will accept enough goods to render English pounds convertible into United States dollars?
Turning now to the Bretton Woods agreement: Can the Bretton Woods agreement, or a carload of such agreements, contribute even in the slightest degree to causing the United States to accept more British goods, or more Canadian goods, or more French goods, or more goods of any other nation? To ask the question of intelligent members, such as those now sitting before me, is to have them answer it with a thunderous "no". The measure of the efficacy of Bretton Woods in contributing to the convertibility of currencies is just completely zero. It can cause trouble to nations, as the hon. member for Eglinton has shown, in connection with the production in Canada of gold; it can interfere with trade, as it already has done, and render the situation infinitely more complex for such struggling nations as Great Britain and France and Germany; it can bring about an inflation that nobody knows what to do with. But it cannot possibly contribute in the slightest degree to the well-being of the nations of the world. That statement goes on Hansard with an open invitation to anyone who thinks he can answer it to do so. I will be right here through the remainder of the debate and right to the end of the session, if it is the Lord's will.
I would go further than the hon. member for Eglinton has gone and say that until the world abandons the Bretton Woods agreement and the international monetary fund there will be no hope of a return to normalcy. Not only must the world abandon those measures, it must abandon the other iniquitous measures which have been entered into in the spirit which actuated Bretton Woods. As the hon. member for Peace River says, that was

the agreement under which we sold a large part of our sovereignty. I think every hon. member realizes that, in the light of the situation presently confronting us.
I have been struggling to repress feelings which I think I should express. Yesterday we heard from the President of France a speech which we all enjoyed. We appreciate greatly the honour that was conferred upon us as a nation, as I believe he appreciated the honour we conferred upon his nation when he spoke before us. But there were things implicit in the speech that he delivered which are absolutely contrary to the well-being of the peoples of the world. They had to do in large measure with the general ideas that brought about the misconception to which the hon. member for Eglinton referred when he read that idealistic piece of nonsense from the Bretton Woods agreement.
It is interesting to recall that we had in December 1945 during the Bretton Woods debate a body of people across the floor belonging to the Liberal party who styled themselves as the "Little Chicago" group. These members just sat there and virtually bellowed and brayed at the Social Crediters to prevent them from putting the truth before the house and the country.


Mr. Riley:: Don't look at us.


John Horne Blackmore: I realize that all members over there except one are new.


Solon Earl Low: There has been a real change since those days.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Don't cast reflections on us.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no reflection. The simple point is that if the members of that "Little Chicago" group were not appointed by the Liberal administration to try to silence this group of thirteen standing against the remaining members of the whole house, then all I can say is their performance on that occasion constituted one of the greatest disgraces in the history of the Canadian House of Commons. They helped also to stampede the country and parliament into the adoption of several genuinely iniquitous measures.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Did they influence you?


John Horne Blackmore: Not a bit, because we knew what it was all about; and if the hon. member is in any doubt he can ask us questions as the days go by and we will satisfy him on the matter.
I think the time has come when the house should contemplate seriously withdrawing from the Bretton Woods agreement and the international monetary fund. To that end I would invite the careful study of every
Gold Mining
member of the house and every person in the country. Until we can find a device whereby we can overcome the difficulty of the shortage of United States dollars we have not begun to see the light in the world with respect to convertibility of currency.
Is this parliament of this great nation, great already and far greater to be, to be trammelled to the extent that it cannot pass a simple innocent little measure like the one before us without going and pleading for the consent of the international monetary fund? Perhaps I had better not say what I think and know about the members of that organization for fear of doing them harm when they cannot answer in their own defence.


Mr. Sinclair:: Our own minister is one of the governors, and Graham Towers.


John Horne Blackmore: If our own minister is one of the governors then we had better go right to work and1 educate him. Mr. Ilsley, who was minister of finance during the time when this measure was actually stampeded through the house-


Solon Earl Low: By threat of closure.


John Horne Blackmore: -by the veiled threat of closure on the part of the prime minister, went to Toronto the next year or two years later and gave a most glowing speech of hope for the future because we had accepted the Bretton Woods agreement! Let hon. members behold what a glowing future we have had.


Mr. Hansell:: He has gone to his reward.


John Horne Blackmore: There is one other thing I think I had better say something about, the effect that Russia had in refusing to enter into the Bretton Woods agreement. I asked the hon. member for Eglinton if he believed that the entrance of Russia into the Bretton Woods agreement would have assisted in any way. I know I took him at an unfair disadvantage and I did not expect him to do anything except just what he did, and he did it very well. But let me say right now that if Russia had gone into the Bretton Woods agreement it would have made matters infinitely worse because you would have had this iniquitous international monster called the international monetary fund obtruding its offensive nose into the intimate affairs of every nation on the face of the earth, and with all the backing of the whole body of nations of the world.
The minister went and asked the monetary fund if he might introduce this resolution and pass the bill, and the monetary fund graciously consented that he might, because it really could not do much else. However, if the fund had the whole world behind it,

Gold Mining
including Russia, Australia and New Zealand!, one can imagine the way it would be cracking the whip and pointing to the line that Canada would toe not only with respect to developing our gold mines but every other kind of mining in Canada, and every other kind of industry in this country. Let not hon. members or anybody else lay any blame on Russia, Australia or New Zealand for the catastrophic failure of the Bretton Woods agreement. It was foredoomed to failure because it was founded on worse than quicksand if it was proposed to be a measure to improve the welfare of the world.
I am not going to go into detail on the general thesis that Russia's entrance would have made matters much worse instead of better because I think it would probably be a little too far afield from the measure. However, I say once more to members of the house and the people of the. country: Beware of Bretton Woods. Beware of the international monetary fund. The sooner these things are taken down from their high position, put away in mothballs and ultimately buried and forgotten, the better it will be for everyone in the world.


Mr. J. A. Bradeiie (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to my main remarks, which are going to be fairly brief, may I say that I believe it is my duty and obligation to say a few words on this very important resolution, the primary reason being that for twenty-three years of my public life I have had the great honour of representing one of the greatest gold-producing regions of our country, the Porcupine section. In that occupation I have always pursued a middle course between producers and labour. I have always had the respect and attention of both parties, and from that experience I have an idea of the importance of gold mining to the national economy of Canada. I want to compliment the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) on the resolution, and also on his appointment as minister. I know he will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors of the Conservative and Liberal parties. Whoever they were they always made a point to come on the ground and study the situation that existed in the gold mining sections of Canada.
A few weeks prior to the appointment of the present minister we had the pleasure and the good fortune of having a visit from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), who at that time also held the mines portfolio, to the northern section of the province of Quebec and the Kirkland Lake and Porcupine regions. As had been done on other occasions by previous ministers, he showed by the speeches he made, and at the meetings he

had with management and labour and the public, that he was fully familiar with the existing situation and the dire necessity of maintaining some assistance so far as the gold mining industry of Canada was concerned. I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). As usual he was eloquent; he presented some good arguments; I know he was sincere, and I compliment him on his remarks. I am not going to try to follow the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who spoke almost entirely on the Bretton Woods agreement. All I want to say at this point is that the agreement did give us a yardstick based on gold standard; that is why gold is mentioned in the agreement.
I do not entirely agree with the statement of the hon. member for Eglinton that the present government has done almost everything possible to be disagreeable to the gold mining industry. After all, the situation confronting the gold mining industry in Canada was not created by the government. I remember vividly when Mr. Ilsley, then minister of finance, announced to parliament and the country that the Canadian dollar would be placed on a par with the United States dollar. I knew the gold mining industry of this country was going to be hit. That very night, while I was still listening to the minister of finance, I received phone calls from some people vitally interested in that industry. I told them there was no doubt they were going to be hit, but that personally I felt that in bringing the Canadian dollar to parity with the United States dollar the government was doing a good thing for the country as a whole and that some remedies would be found. I believe I was right in what I said at that time, and the Canadian people have agreed with me. That evening I also received three telephone calls from high officials of large newsprint and sulphite industries in my constituency, asking what was going to happen to them. I told them not to worry, because the prices of newsprint and sulphite were flexible and could go up or down as required, following world prices. I was much more worried about the gold mining industry, in which the price was standardized and is still standardized at $35 an ounce, than I was worried about the newsprint industry. As it has turned out I was absolutely right. We all know what happened to newsprint, pulp, sulphite, lumber and almost everything else. Lumber, for example, has gone up from 200 to 400 per cent since those days.
The Canadian parliament, and more particularly those hon. members in whose ridings gold mining was a very important factor, knew the situation was serious. I remember

that my dear colleague from Timiskaming spoke to me the same night, saying, "Joe, what are we going to do?" I replied that there was only one thing to do; we would go back to our respective constituencies and tell them the exact situation. They were reasonable people; they were good Canadians, and they would understand the situation. If it was a good thing for Canada as a whole to bring the Canadian dollar to parity I was sure our people would accept it, though it might seriously affect the gold mining industry. That is what we did. Within two weeks we visited our section of the country and explained the situation. Our people understood, though naturally they expected that the matter would receive the attention it deserved from the federal treasury, and to a large degree these hopes have been fulfilled. I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton that we should not necessarily be completely satisfied with this legislation. We want more. We are something like the western farmers, the eastern industrialists and all the others; the more we get the better we are pleased, though at the same time we are very practical in our requests.
I believe this is a good measure. The hon. member for Eglinton asked for permanent legislation but I must say that at the present time it is absolutely impossible to have permanent legislation as far as gold production is concerned. The hon. member made another statement with which I do not agree when he said that government officials and perhaps other people in Canada thought that if we increased the price of gold here it would have an inflationary effect. I have never heard one Canadian express the opinion that a higher price for gold would be inflationary. That statement has always come from the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will permit me, I do not think he quite followed what I said. I was dealing with a possible argument, and I said I did not think anyone could establish the proposition that an increase in the price at which Canadian gold might be sold abroad would be inflationary on the Canadian market.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am glad to accept that
statement, because I do not know of any Canadian who would argue that an increase in the price of gold in Canada would be inflationary. Three years ago I visited Washington where I had some discussion and argument with some high officials of the government. They told us very definitely that it was impossible for the United States to increase the price of gold. At the time we thought we might have a chance to get some $10 to $15 more an ounce. I argued
Gold Mining
until I was blue in the face trying to show them that an increase in the price could not possibly be inflationary. I tried to point out that the United States was the greatest holder of gold bullion in the world, and that if the price was increased by their own volition it would only be beneficial to that great country. However, that feeling still prevails among the higher officials of the United States, and I believe it is one of the things on which the president is absolutely convinced.
Now I am going to say a few words about the Bretton Woods agreement, because in several places it mentions the necessity for at least a 25 per cent gold backing for that fund. I do not entirely agree with the opinion of the hon. member for Lethbridge. In my opinion the Bretton Woods agreement was a wonderful thing, not only for Canada, but for the whole of the civilized world. When that agreement was drawn up mentioning gold it showed that there was a reason for that metal; it showed there was a need for such a yardstick for our own monetary system and that of practically every other country. That is the first point in favour of gold production. Then there is a demand for gold by artists and craftsmen, in dentistry, and for many other things for which people would gladly buy gold if it were available. For instance, I believe that if tomorrow our mint should issue say $50 million in $5 and $10 gold pieces, they would be distributed within two or three weeks at the most. People want something tangible in their monetary system which they feel they do not have at the present time. They are right, of course, in that feeling, but I am just giving the opinion of the people in my own constituency. Only last evening at the reception at the French embassy I was told by a Frenchman from North Africa that practically the only currency which was accepted during the war in North Africa, Spanish Morocco, Sicily and southern Italy was the $5 and $10 gold pieces carrying the United States eagle. He told me, and I believe it to be true, that those gold pieces had saved the lives of hundreds, yes thousands of young Americans, Canadians and allied troops.
So there is a meaning for gold in our monetary system; and if there is a meaning and acceptance of it there is no reason why it should not be dealt with at least to some extent as other mining like base metals and other production is dealt with. We all know what has happened to steel, copper, lead, zinc and all the other metals. Mind you, gold is one of the most difficult metals to extract from the entrails of the earth. There is no placer gold in northern Ontario. At

Gold Mining
the present time there is only a little placer gold in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. There is no placer gold in northern Quebec or the Kirkland Lake section. It comes from solid rock, and many of the mines are operating today only by the skin of their teeth. The Hollinger mine, for instance, has always been working some very low grade ore, on which they pay very small dividends indeed. It is only because of the ingenuity of the men running these mines, their good management and the fine miners working in them that they have been able to keep in operation. What has happened to the base metals? What has happened even to silver? What has happened to cobalt and to aluminum?
The prices of those products have increased by twenty per cent, forty per cent, sixty per cent and in some cases by three hundred per cent. Gold production has remained absolutely stationary. This is a situation which cannot be tolerated much longer because gold production looms large in our national economy, as the member for Eglinton said so well a few moments ago. It has its beneficial effect in all streams of our Canadian life. It affects, beneficially, the cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, regardless of what the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) states. In our section we buy a lot of lumber from the hon. member's province, and we pay a great deal more for it than we used to pay. We are not complaining about that. The hon. member ought to realize what gold has meant to all sections of Canada, even the Yukon Territory, in the past, what it may mean in the future.
I have at least established this argument that gold is a metal which is not only being used as the yardstick for the monetary systems of most of the nations of the world, but it is a metal that the people generally throughout the world will accept, whether it be minted or in any other form. I recall that my grandfather had one of those heavy gold chains. I believe it was almost pure gold, twenty-four carat. It was an heirloom and he cherished it. If you try to buy one of those gold chains today, you will not be able to get it. Only a few days ago I was in one of the large jewelry shops in Ottawa. I was told by a responsible man in that shop that if they were allowed to buy gold and use it as they liked in jewelry they would buy hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of gold. There is a reason for gold; there is a necessity for gold; there is a demand for gold. If there is a demand, it should follow the trend of other metals.
If there is no necessity for that yardstick in our monetary system, if the people do not request it, let us close the mines and forget about it. Then, you will have an immediate reaction because gold will always be a metal that not only carries glamour but has general acceptability. To illustrate to the Canadian people what it is worth in international transactions, I shall read a few sections of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. Article IV, par values of currencies, section 8 dealing with maintenance of gold value of the fund's assets, reads:
The gold value of the fund's assets shall be maintained notwithstanding changes in the par or foreign exchange value of the currency of any member.
There, you see the thread of my argument. I am not speaking as a theorist because I participated in the discussion. A member of the Social Credit party was in attendance, and when that paragraph was mentioned it was agreed to by the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I always listen to him with attention because he is well versed in the monetary systems, not only of Canada but of the world. Then, subsection (b) reads:
Whenever the par value of a member's currency is reduced, or the foreign exchange value of a member's currency has, in the opinion of the fund, depreciated to a significant extent within that member's territories, the member shall pay to the fund within a reasonable time an amount of its own currency equal to the reduction in the gold value of its currency held by the fund.
Again there is mention of gold there. It never disappears from that act.
Subsection (c) reads:
Whenever the par value of a member's currency is increased, the fund shall return to such member within a reasonable time an amount in its currency equal to the increase in the gold value of its currency held by the fund.
I shall not read at length, but I should like to cite one other section to show how important gold is considered. Article V, transactions with the fund, section 6, page 9 of the act reads:
Any member desiring to obtain, directly or indirectly, the currency of another member for gold shall, provided that it can do so with equal advantage, acquire it by the sale of gold to the fund.
Subsection (b) reads:
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude any member from selling in any market gold newly produced from mines located within its territories.
Now, the terms of this subsection might seem to be ambiguous, but at the same time there is a good reason for it. This is not the time or place to discuss the reasons. I believe that these sections will prove to parliament that there is a necessity for maintaining the solidarity of something so basic

so far as the Bretton Woods fund is concerned, regardless of what some members say on that score. I agree with the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) when he says that in the world of today gold should at least be twenty-five per cent of the currency used. There is no reason in the world why we should be denied a good price for gold because of this act. We are in a very difficult position so far as gold is concerned. I am no prophet, but I believe that if gold mining played as important a part in the economy of the United States as it does in Canada, the price of gold would have been increased quite a few years ago. South Africa and Canada are to a large extent dependent on gold and the largest producers, excluding Russia-we have no access there at the present time, although they have found it possible to unload a very large amount in recent years on the money markets of the world.
It should be within the orbit of the government, and within the power of this parliament, to tell the Bretton Woods management that it is unfair to Canada so far as the price of gold is concerned to have it pegged at the present price. I am not going to argue that point at any greater length. I believe I have shown parliament the necessity of getting a good price for our gold. I do not like subsidies. I believe I was interrupted by a C.C.F. member a year or two ago when I said I have always been against subsidies. What else can one do under circumstances of this nature? You are dealing with a metal which is, in certain circumstances, a commodity. It is used as the yardstick for the monetary systems of the world, but the price of gold has remained stationary, it has remained pegged. What would the western farmers say today if the price of wheat were the same as during the depression years? What would the lumber operators say if the price were the same as it was sixteen years ago? I would be the first one to get on my feet, under those circumstances, and speak in favour of the lumber industry and the farmers. The gold mining section of Canada is not prejudiced; we always take a national viewpoint. When I was home during the Easter recess I heard no criticism of the bonus that was paid to the western farmers. In fact, some said that we should have given them a little more.
I am making this plea because I know this situation. No one wants to see fine centres of population like Timmins closed up. I know that a large number of members have visited that section of the country. No one wants to see centres like Schumacher and
Gold Mining
South Porcupine closed and many towns in northern Quebec. The gold mining industry has established them and has established schools, good hospitals, and all the up-to-date necessary utility services. These centres have a fine, healthy, prosperous population- not so prosperous today, but it has been, and hopes to be again. *
Members may recall a few years ago there was a certain amount of colonization attempted in northern Quebec. When I was a young man going to school around 1900, I recall when the Canadian Pacific was built to North Bay. At that time it was thought that it was the extreme limit at which white people could live, according to the belief at that time. Today we are living four hundred miles from North Bay. In Hearst alone we have hundreds of people establishing themselves from year to year. You go into northern Quebec and you will find one of the finest colonization schemes. And how was it made possible? It was made possible not only because of the land and the forest, but because of the mines, copper and gold. No one wants to see that industry closed down. I know of the speeches that have been made here by the member for Lethbridge. Today the hon. member never said a word against gold, and I give him credit for that. He speaks as a Canadian. The leader of the party has been in our section, and he knows what a great factor gold mining is in our national economy. I also want to pay my compliments to the hon. member for Eglinton. I know that in his criticism he did not want to be unfair. He wanted to be constructive, because he also realizes the great importance that the gold mining industry is to Canada as a whole, and no one would want anything to happen to it. It is possible of solution. I do not believe in the open market.
No matter what we say, it is not only Bretton Woods that will stop us from selling on the open market. We must remember this. At the present time we may say that the United States is unfair to us; but when they increased the price of gold from $25 an ounce to $35 an ounce it was a marvellous thing for Canada. Every ounce of gold production was sent to the United States and paid for with United States dollars that we always needed. The same principle applies just as forcibly today. Every ounce of gold that is produced in Canada today finds its way to the United States, and there it helps us to balance Canadian dollars with United States dollars. Those are facts which we cannot forget in this country. To me it seems-I may be wrong-that you cannot bootleg against the United States treasury.

Gold Mining
We hear a lot of talk about South Africa selling their gold. I have several articles saying that in some places they get $62 an ounce for it. I think it is said that they get $62 an ounce in Calcutta, and at Hong Kong they get as much as $43.75 an ounce, and that in some sections of Europe they are getting $42.75 an ounce, and at other places they get $40 an ounce. But is that a steady market? Is that a permanent market? What kind of money will you receive in payment for that gold bullion, and who will do the collecting?
If we had an open market for gold I would not want the government to assume the role of collector. They have enough to collect at the present time. Who would try to collect for that gold? All these are things that we must be very careful of when we mention an increased price for gold.
We do not kowtow to the United States but it is fortunate for us to be their neighbour. How fortunate it is for Canada to have as a neighbour that great big friendly nation to the south of us. They have their faults, the same as we have. I have no doubt in my mind that when we present our case logically and justly we shall have as always a good listening ear and they will listen to what we have to say. I have no doubt they are beginning to realize at the present time- I think it may come in the very near future

that the price of gold must of necessity be increased. But until that is performed by the United States treasury then it is the duty of parliament to pass some legislation that will allow that fine industry to survive. I use the word "survive" deliberately, because anyone with any business acumen will readily understand the precarious position that that industry finds itself in at the present time when all metal production and all other production, whether of the farm, of the soil or of the forest, has increased in price, and we are in agreement with it, while the price of gold has been stabilized. The thing of necessity must receive the attention of the government on that score alone.
I come again to the Bretton Woods agreement, and I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton, although I know that as a member of the United Nations and as a signatory to the Bretton Woods agreement we must give up in some instances some of our national sovereignty. But I do not believe it was ever meant that sovereignty would be conducive to this, that this agreement would compel the gold producers of Canada to accept an arbitrary price at the dictation of the Bretton Woods agreement.
[Mr. Bradette.l
Again I repeat, if an increase in gold is needed under that monetary fund, then gold, being a metal, of necessity must follow the prices, or the trends of other metals. If it were a thing that you could find by the pocketful in some creek or a thing of that kind it would be different. No doubt the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) will speak after me and will give the house some statistics as to the great efforts the gold mining industry this country has put forth, the inventiveness and the genius that they have employed to survive. We sometimes hear that we have some rich gold mines. There are some very high-grade gold mines in Canada. AVe have one or two of them in the Timmins section, like McIntyre, and there are one or two in the Kirkland Lake section. None of them is in the Quebec section, and none in the northwestern section of northern Ontario. The same applies to the Northwest Territories and to Canada as a whole. There is no bonanza anywhere so far as gold is concerned. They are able to exploit those mines now by ingenuity, by modern inventiveness, and by doing all that they possibly can they have been able to survive, hoping that they will have a better day, hoping that some day in the not too far distant future the nations will realize, the United States and no doubt the Bretton Woods agreement will realize, that if they want to maintain the fund as sound as they wish it to be they will have to increase the price of gold.
I should like some of the hon. members to visit some of the newer mines in northern Quebec, for instance, where they will see much machinery on the second floor of the buildings. They will hear its continual buzzing, purring and whirring, you may say. They will see those tremendous and great machines crushing enormous amounts of solid rock. They will ask themselves: Where is the manpower? They may see one, two, three men managing one whole floor. These mines have been able to survive because they have kept up to date; otherwise, they would have been buried under their own weight two or three years ago.
I have an appeal to make at the present time first of all to the national treasury, asking them to use all their influence to assist the gold mines, because the yardstick of gold must of necessity be maintained, and so that the Bretton Woods agreement will not have the right to dictate to our country what the price of gold should be.
Personally, I do not think that even in the United States an increase in the price of gold would be inflationary because my information is that the gold bullion that the United States had five, six or seven years ago is almost depleted at the present time, and there is no

doubt also that they will continue to buy it owing to the necessity and the urgency of maintaining their supply.
Some people may ask, why does the Canadian government not buy gold at $35 or $40 or more an ounce and issue their own currency. I believed, and I still believe it, when Mr. Ilsley announced in the House of Commons that the Canadian dollar would be placed on a parity with the United States dollar, that the Canadian dollar was the belle of the ball; it was the soundest money in the world. Whether it is possible for the government to do that, I leave the question with the treasury benches. It has been possible for the United States during the last twenty or twenty-five years to buy all the gold bullion in the world and pay for it with paper money. I want hon. members to realize there is a small margin so far as Canadian gold production is concerned between the selling price and the cost price. There is a very small profit. The profits have never been very high; and if it was possible for the United States treasury to pay for the gold- because they are good businessmen; there are too many hard-headed businessmen there not to realize the full value of gold-they did that for many years at the cost of billions of dollars in the United States money. If they were able to do that perhaps it may be possible in the meantime for the Canadian treasury to try and make an experiment in buying gold at, we will say, $5 or $10 more an ounce, because we must experiment and try new solutions. As the hon. member for Eglinton said a few moments ago, the measure we have before us is filling a gap. It is not a permanent solution.
I know in my section, and I know that every member of parliament who is familiar with gold production realizes this, we hope against hope that next week or next month, or next year or two years from now we will hear that the United States treasury is paying $40 or $45 an ounce. If that happens immediately you will see the northern sections of Canada flourishing because it will bring other mining activities. They are not only developing that industry in the search for gold. In their search the fine prospectors of Canada have found not only gold, they have found copper, and other metals. The Rouyn-Noranda mining industry in northern Quebec was found by gold prospectors. They could hardly believe their eyes when they saw these great formations of copper-almost solid copper. In those days the sale of copper was so low that they built up great dumps of it. But we know what happened to copper in the last six or seven years, and we know what the copper industry has meant to the whole of Canada.
Gold Mining
We would hope that within a reasonable period of time the price of gold might come into its own. We do not want an increase of 300 or 400 or even 100 per cent. We want only a reasonable increase in the price of gold. If that is done we will see those northern sections booming and coming into full fruition; there is no doubt about it. That will help every section of Canada. It will help the farmers in the west, the industrialists in the east, the lumber producers and industrialists in British Columbia. It will result in prosperity for all of Canada.
Let me again compliment those who have preceded me in the debate. There has been no acrimony. We all realize the seriousness of the situation in an industry which plays such a great role in the national economy of Canada.
Concluding my remarks, let me compliment again the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys as well as the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament upon their open-mindedness so far as the gold-mining country is concerned. And if at the moment I speak on a matter of this kind, it is not because I have any personal interest. I am not a stockholder; but I have been in my constituency for the last forty-five years, and I realize the great part the gold-mining industry is playing in our Canadian life, and the great role it will be called upon to play in the future.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the subject before us this afternoon has been discussed on a basis which is the proper one upon which a debate like this should proceed, namely the interest of the nation. I should like to be able to emulate those who have preceded me in the knowledge they have displayed of the international issues concerned, but even though I may be unable to do that I hope I shall be able to emulate them in the high plane on which they placed their remarks, and in keeping the debate free from acrimony.
Before coming to the particular points I wish to make this afternoon I should like to associate myself to the full with what was said by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) regarding the over-all view which should be taken respecting the position of the gold-mining industry in Canada, and particularly I would associate myself with that portion of his remarks in which he said he felt the time had come when we could no longer treat the gold-mining industry on a hand-to-mouth basis, but that its position in the national economy demands that its problems be regarded and dealt with on a long-term basis.

Gold Mining
I am not going to enter into the controversy referred to this afternoon as to whether an increase in the price of gold would mean inflation or whether it would help in the restoration of convertibility of currencies and therefore in the restoration of international trade in the world. I think, on balance, the probabilities are that the restoration of a free market for gold would do more to help than to hinder the free interchange of goods and the convertibility of currency. On balance, the evidence indicates also that a free market for gold or an increased price for gold would have more of a deflationary than an inflationary tendency.
But those are only opinions. I do not put them forward as expert opinions, because I do not regard myself as qualified to enter fully into those discussions, nor do I propose to pursue my remarks along those lines at greater length. However, I do think it is fair and also important to say that the policy suggested-and only suggested-by the hon. member for Eglinton, namely, a move in the direction of a free market for gold, which is a policy of which I should like to see further consideration, would have the effect of solving permanently the problem of the goldmining industry. It is to a permanent solution that, in my view, we must direct our minds. And it is particularly because I believe that the increasing of the price of gold or, if it should be found possible, the granting of a free market for gold, would provide a permanent solution of the problems of the gold-mining industry, that I support the investigation and the consideration of that question, which the hon. member urged the government should give at this time.
The position of the gold-mining industry was recognized by the minister this afternoon when he said that it was the search for gold which in large measure had resulted in the development of the great mining industry, covering many metals other than gold, which now occupies such an important place in the economy of our country.
Not only should the problem be approached from the point of view of the position of the gold-mining industry, but it is important to look at the position of the men who work in the mines. I do not approve of a policy of pleading special cases for special industries, because to make a special case of one industry or another generally creates more complications than it does benefits. The old adage is still true, that hard cases make bad law. But in respect of most industries- and I would not confine it to industries alone, but perhaps should include agriculture and every other type of occupation-in a normal and free economy it can be argued with

justification that those engaged in any particular pursuit take their own chances. No one forces them into a certain line of endeavour, and if they wish to go into it then, other things being equal, they must stand or fall by their decision and are not entitled constantly to come forward asking for special considerations. But the goldmining industry is one the actions and markets of which are not free, but which are closely circumscribed by governmental and international policy, which has set a definite price limit on the end product of those mines.
Gold is the only commodity which has not been decontrolled following the war. Never since the introduction of an official price for gold in recent years has that price been set free. True, it has been subject to adjustment; but the price of gold has never been decontrolled and it is the only commodity I can think of which has not at one time or another, following the end of the war in 1945, been decontrolled. So that the gold-mining industry is a special case. It is a case where the end product is controlled, but where all the articles entering into the cost of production are decontrolled. This industry is accordingly entitled to special consideration by the government and by parliament in virtue of its special position as a result of government policy. Whether that government policy be part of international policy or not, the result in so far as the gold mines of this country are concerned is the same.
We have an unusual situation here in that the men who are engaged in the industry, the men who are working in the mines, are asking for a higher price for the product of their industry. It is not very often that we find organized labour making a request for higher prices. Organized labour in the gold mines-as every other Canadian with average common sense must do-realizes that if the workers are to continue to receive a decent wage, a wage which compares with the wages in other industries not subject to this control, they must support the request that an adequate return to the industry in which they work be made possible so that their wages can be maintained at an adequate level and can compare favourably with the wages paid in other industry, particularly in other parts of the mining industry. We are therefore now in receipt of requests from the industry itself, from mining associations and from the men who work in the mines, through their unions, for a new policy with respect to gold.
I do not believe that the resolution stage on the bill is the time to enter into a discussion of the details of that policy. That might better be done when we are in committee on the resolution or perhaps best of all when we

have the bill before us. But I am justified in laying these considerations before the minister at this time by the fact that I have received a number of requests that the policy, in so far as it has been revealed through press releases, with respect to gold mining assistance, requires alteration if it is to meet the needs of the industry.
I think our best chance of getting an alteration in the policy is on the resolution stage before the bill is actually introduced. It is only from that aspect that I shall refer to the type of policy which it is suggested will solve the problem of the gold mining industry. It is not necessary for me to enter into details because these have already been adequately coveredi by the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). There are two alternatives that might be adopted in an effort to solve this problem, but one or other must be adopted in the interests of survival of the industry.
The first is a free market for gold. I believe that on balance the evidence which is before the house indicates that a free market for gold would have beneficial effects on international trade and the convertibility of currency. I realize, as do hon. members who have spoken, that there are many difficulties in the way of a free market for gold. Most of those difficulties revolve around the Bretton Woods agreement. But I believe that those difficulties can be faced, and if grasped can be dealt with and resolved satisfactorily. That is one possible solution to the problem of the gold mining industry.
But if that course is not adopted, then I believe that some further measures will be necessary beyond what are now contemplated by the government in the bill to be based on this resolution. A measure of further assistance will be necessary to enable the gold mines to continue to operate. I rest the justification for further assistance on the minister's own words in which he described the importance of the gold mining industry and the fact that the plight of this great industry has arisen as a result of governmental and international policy and not because of any action or lack of action by the industry itself.
In my constituency as it is now constituted is located the largest gold mine in British Columbia, the Bralorne mine, and also the Pioneer mine, another large operation. Those are the only two major producers in the constituency, but in the Bridge river valley in which they lie are a number of other mines. Some of these mines are virtually abandoned, but others are only temporarily
Gold Mining
closed and I understand would resume operations if the position of the industry were resolved favourably. There is thus a large gold mining industry, both actual and potential, in the constituency which I represent.
The mine unions, particularly the one at Bralorne, have made a number of requests and representations which I feel I should lay before the minister, asking that further assistance be given to the industry. They support the view that if it is not possible to resolve this problem by a free market for gold, then there should be a measure of assistance over and above what is now contemplated. I can assure you that the gold mining industry in British Columbia faces an acute problem and it is doubtful if it will be able to continue operations without a further measure of assistance.
The men who work in the mines are vitally affected by the continuance of operations. Their families and communities are at stake and they have asked that their requests be laid before the government. There has just come to my notice today a memorandum from the Mining Association of British Columbia with a covering letter dated April 2. I do not know whether the minister has seen this. They produce figures which seem to be accurate-there is a detailed tabulation attached to the memorandum-and which show that from the best reports available the program which the government intends to embody in the bill about to be presented will make less assistance available to the British Columbia gold mines than has been available in the past.
From the tabulation they present here it appears that the actual assistance received by the six leading mines in British Columbia under the gold mining assistance act during 1949 amounted to $907,000. It is estimated that under what is understood to be the proposed formula the assistance in 1951 will amount to $594,100, or a decrease of $313,300 in the assistance which these mines will receive. Then they go on to say as follows:
Because of wage increases granted during the past two years as well as substantial increases in the cost of supplies, equipment, and services, it is quite evident that the gold mines in British Columbia would, under the proposed new assistance formula, be much worse off during the ensuing year than at any time since emergency gold mining assistance was granted. Not only are costs higher for wages and supplies. The gold mines are subjected to an increasing disadvantage in competition for labour because of the unavoidable and growing discrepancy in wage rates. Competing sections of the mining industry are paying from $1.50 to $2.75 per day more for labour than the gold mines. Under these circumstances it is apparent that the gold mines in British Columbia will not be able to maintain production during 1951 at even the rate achieved during 1950, and there will be a consequent further reduction in assistance received.

Gold Mining
Then in conclusion they urge that:
. . . fullest consideration be given to this memorandum, and that the necessary steps be taken to provide for an immediate reconsideration of the proposed assistance formula,
I should say there that the reference to the position of the men who work in the mines and the wage rates paid in the gold mines of British Columbia is fully supported by the representations I have received from the Bralorne mine local concerning the "position in which they find themselves not only with respect to meeting their own costs of living but particularly in comparison with wage rates received in other parts of the mining industry in the province and in the rest of Canada. I believe there are some 6,000 actual workers engaged in the gold mining industry throughout the province at the present time. The house will realize that 6,000 men actually working in the mines means a good many more than that directly concerned as the families of these men. There are probably 18,000 persons, as a very rough estimate, in families directly dependent on employment in the gold mines. In addition of course there are the communities and service industries which have grown up and which are dependent themselves on the maintenance of these mines in prosperous and active condition. I mention that merely to emphasize the importance of this problem to the province of British Columbia.
In amplification and verification of that fact I should like to lay before the house the text of a resolution passed by the legislature of British Columbia yesterday dealing with the question of assistance to the gold mining industry. The legislature of British Columbia unanimously passed the following resolution:
Whereas the restricted price of gold is making it difficult for the gold mining industry of British Columbia to continue in operation, and whereas the gold mining industry in this province employs about 6,000 men who are located in such places that other employment is not available and on the continued employment of whom the existence of whole communities depends, and whereas the skill and experience of these men do not in many cases qualify them to find employment in defence industries so that a shut-down in the gold mines would result in much unemployment and hardship; therefore be it resolved that this house urge upon the dominion government the pressing necessity of taking such steps as may be requisite to ensure a price of gold which would keep the gold mines of the province in continuous operation.
That would verify, Mr. Speaker, if such verification be necessary, what I have said. I am quite certain that my colleagues from British Columbia will bear me out as to the importance of the problem to the economy of the province. The fact that the legislature of the province took the time, when they are engaged-as members who read the press well

know-in other very controversial issues, to pass a special resolution which received the unanimous support of all members of that house, indicates clearly to this house, the government and the minister concerned, the vital importance of the problem to our province.
Therefore on the basis of the representations received from the mine workers unions, the mining association, the communities affected, and lastly from the legislature oi the province of British Columbia, I would urge that even before the proposed bill is introduced the government's program and proposed solution for this problem should be re-examined in the light of these submissions.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Gold Mining
I referred a few moments ago to a deposit found in northwestern Quebec. I am glad to say that this discovery was made by young Canadians from the constituency of my hon. friend from Chapleau (Mr. Gourd). In fact, the Leclerc brothers had gone to Barraute township looking for gold; but instead they found metals which are now of great importance to all of Canada.
So far, only a minute portion of that deposit has been explored, yet it has been proved to contain 17 million tons of commercial ore. A 5,000-ton mill will be built there very soon and this development will provide jobs for more than a thousand workers.
Are we to shut our eyes and imagine that this zinc was come upon through sheer luck? No, we must admit that this metal came tc light because of the hard work of the prospectors who found it in their feverish quest for gold.
Some people keep asking the government to shut down the gold mines. I believe those people do not realize all the hardships that might follow such a step.
What would happen if the government decided to shut down the gold mines? It is easy to say that gold miners could be put to work in other metal-bearing areas; but when we see towns organized mainly by mine-workers, I believe we would have to think twice before we could say that those people could be moved easily. But I do not want to labour the point. Canada is destined to become the principal world purveyor of a wide range of metals. Our mining industry has meant a lot to us in the past, and will mean even more in the future.
Another very important factor to keep in mind is that the metal-bearing mines of Canada give employment to more than 112,000 men, including 23,000 who work in gold mines, and have more than 500,000 dependents. Every year these people buy farm products to the substantial amount of $65 million. I have no ulterior motive in mentioning that particular figure, although it has been mentioned quite frequently of late. Every year our mining towns and villages buy $150 million worth of articles of clothing, blankets, furniture, et cetera. In considering that amount, we readily realize what it means for the manufacturing centres of the country.
(Text):
Now, Mr. Speaker, these substantial amounts which I have mentioned do not include other supplies such as lumber, machinery, electrical equipment and hundreds of similar products. Goods purchased in these categories during 1948 amounted to $151-5 millions. With your permission, sir, I should like to read into the record a list of those products and their value. The list is as follows:	Tools and machinery, $16
million; mine cars and locomotives, $1-8 million; other iron and steel products, $16-7 million; reagents and chemicals, $5 [DOT] 2 million; coal and coke, $15-4 million; petroleum products, $4-4 million; rubber products, $1-3 million; building products, $3-2 million; lumber and timber, $8-8 million; electrical equipment, $7 million; air-operated equipment, $3-2 million; explosives, $6-8 million; hydroelectric power, $9-9 million; freight and express, $31 million; miscellaneous, $20-8 million. These figures are furnished by the Canadian Metal Mining Association. As I have already said, during the year 1948 Canadian mines bought products to the value of $151 million, which represents thirty cents out of every dollar of revenue. In addition to purchases in the communities which are closely related to the mines, Canadian mines bought in over five hundred other communities all across Canada.
The figures to which I have just referred do not include capital expenditure. Even if we consider only two of the new mines which were recently put into production, this represents a substantial amount. For instance, the capital expenditure for Campbell Red Lake before production amounted to $3 million and for East Sullivan mines amounted to $5-5 million. I believe we should^ stress that point. After hearing hon. members I realize that we shall not have too much trouble in putting our point to them this afternoon. Everyone seems to understand the difficult situation in which our mines find themselves today. If I make mention of the base metal mines, it is only because our gold mines are closely related to all other mines. The search for gold is responsible for the finding of many base metals.
In 1948 the Canadian government realized the difficulty in which the gold mines were, and they enacted the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. This act has been amended, and today we are called upon to amend it again in order to change the formula


and so on. We all realize that the government knows this is not a true solution. I have taken note of what the minister has said, that we have certain responsibilities towards international agreements and we have to observe those agreements. I accept his word for that. We are taking the onlyway we can to accomplish our purpose.
I realize it is not possible for the government to break abruptly from the monetary fund, but I do hope that the government will find it possible to break away from this monetary fund. I believe that the Canadian government would be justified in paying higher prices for gold. It may not be possible right now, but I think it should be possible in the near future. If the United States could buy gold at $35 fifteen years ago, I should think that today, realizing the rise in the price of all commodities and wages, the Canadian government should see its way clear to asking a higher price for the gold. I think that is the true solution. If we believe we should stop the hoarding of gold, then the free market is not the solution because then we would be partners to such hoarding. I believe that the Canadian government is the one who should try to sell our gold at as high a price as we can get for it.
We have this resolution before us. We know that this act has been of benefit to the industry since it was enacted in 1948. It has helped many communities, it has helped the employees and the mines. Naturally, we hope that it will continue to do so. I am afraid that with rising prices the mines will have difficulty in keeping their costs down to avoid getting in the red. I shall support this resolution. I am very happy that it has been presented to the house today. From what we have heard, I believe it has the support of the whole house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Herridge:: I had hoped to speak this afternoon, but to facilitate the passage of the resolution, I shall leave my remarks until second reading.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Drew:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: At nine o'clock we will continue with this resolution and then take up the estimates of agriculture.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
6, 1951	1693
Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CANADIAN-MONTANA PIPE DINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 117, to incorporate Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company-Mr. Bennett-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a few questions in connection with the bill. I have no intention of holding up the progress of the bill at all; but pipe lines, particularly natural gas pipe lines, are of vital importance to Canada, and I am sure the sponsor of the bill would be glad to give me any information I should like to have concerning this company. For instance, I would expect him to explain to me tonight who is financing the company and what interests are behind it. I have no doubt they are reliable financial interests, that he can readily explain to me who they are and where they expect to get their financial backing.
It is only fair to the people of Canada that this information should be on the record. Therefore I would ask the sponsor to explain to me in detail who these individuals are. I have a series of questions to ask tonight, and if the hon. member would prefer he could answer when I have finished; or it might be easier for him to answer the questions individually. Perhaps the sponsor would express his preference in this connection, just so as to expedite matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is he?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, if he is not here, I suppose the bill will be held over so as to give him an opportunity to answer the questions I shall place on the record.
As I have said, I am very interested in who is financing the company, and whether they hope to raise their funds in Canada, in the United States or somewhere else. Surely we are entitled to that information. I am sure other hon. members will have other questions to ask-because, after all, we are dealing with one of our greatest natural resources and possibly giving part of it away for all time. Therefore I am sure other hon. members as well as myself will be asking questions.
What experience has this company had in the building of pipe lines? I would suppose that anyone undertaking construction of this
1694	HOUSE OF
Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company kind would have had expert advice and vast experience. Perhaps the sponsor would explain that to me. For instance, has the company built any other lines in Canada or the United States-or even in Iran, which was mentioned the other night; and that was covering quite a bit of territory.
What arrangements have been made to get steel? I know of people in my riding who would be glad to learn that steel is readily available because there are some things we would like to do. I know of one lumber company that would like very much to expand. I am sure hon. members know that lumber mills in British Columbia are having great difficulty to get by because of low prices. It is impossible for them to make 102 per cent profit under present prices. But they have to get steel over on Vancouver island, for example, before they can expand.
I hold in my hand a newspaper article dated at Seattle, and headed "Pipe Line Firms Hunting Steel". This, article states:
The next thirty days will decide whether natural gas interests can get 190,000 tons of steel for a pipe line from Alberta to the Pacific Northwest, N. Henry Gellert, president of the Seattle gas company said Tuesday. He said in a speech that natural gas for the area is "inevitable."
If steel is as hard to get as that on the Pacific coast, I presume it is hard to get in Alberta as well, the point from where this company expects to take oil to Montana. I should like to know if they have an assured supply of steel, and if so where they are getting it from. Is it in Canada, the United States or Great Britain?
Unfortunately the sponsor. of the bill is not here tonight, but before it passes I am sure he will give me this information. Assuming naturally that the information would be asked for, he is no doubt away securing it so that he may give it to me next Tuesday or Friday.
I should like to know what route it will take. I understand it is to go from a pocket in Alberta, to the Montana border, thence to connect up with another company. It is my understanding that it runs for about sixteen miles before it makes that connection, but I should like to be assured of that fact. Then, is it going in a direct route? We are asked to permit this company to be formed because it is needed by the Anaconda Copper Company in the production of war materials. Does the line connect directly with this American company, and run from there to the Anaconda Copper Company's smelter, or what route does it take?
Then, have they sufficient gas available?
I do not know just how much is required to augment the present supply, and have they 

any assurance that they will get the amount they require? I do not wish to delay the passage of the bill, but I definitely want this information. I am sure other hon. members would like to have it, too, before the bill passes.


Mr. Green:: There were some amendments moved to the bill when it was before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and I wonder if the chairman could give us the details of those amendments?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: There was an amendment to section 4, subsection 2, providing that the head office shall be within Canada. There was another amendment to section 6 providing for construction entirely within Canada.


Mr. Maclnnis:: This is an important bill and I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley is entitled to have answers to his questions, at least such questions as are legitimate and as far as I could hear they are all legitimate. The bill is sponsored by an hon. member of this house and if he is not here to give information when it is before the committee there should be someone else able and willing to do that. Otherwise, the bill should be laid over until hon. members can have the information they are asking for or some reason is given why that information cannot be given. If there is no one here to answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley then I suggest that you should report progress and' ask leave to sit again.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: I am quite sure that that would be the proper thing to do but if there are other hon. members who have questions to ask I think it might be desirable that they put their questions on record- so that when the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill comes to answer he will be prepared to give all the necessary information.


Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: in Canada and another one was that the main transmission line of the Canadian part would be constructed within Canada. I was particularly impressed with what was said about the export of natural gas. It was pointed out by a witness that this gas had been requested by Mr. Wilson, chairman of the mobilization board of the United States, for use by an essential war industry, and it was to be delivered to that industry under a five-year agreement.
It was brought out that Mr. Wilson had resisted pressure from other concerns for gas, but the needs of the Anaconda Copper Company were considered to be so vital that he requested the premier of Alberta to permit them to have the gas and that is why this company has had this bill introduced to provide for its incorporation.


Mr. Applewhaite:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might take the responsibility of adding my views to those of the hon. member for Edmonton East. I have not the facts before me in writing, but I sat on that committee as did the hon. member and others who are here tonight. I think we all got the impression from the statements made to the committee on behalf of Mr. Wilson that this gas is vital to the defence efforts of this country and of the United States. I asked a question in committee as to when they expected to get the benefit provided the bill was passed and they said it was essential they should be in operation no later than the fall of this year. That would mean an early commencement of construction.
While I realize that the point raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for Vancouver East is a good one I would feel inclined to urge hon. members who are asking for information that they get that information from the printed report of the committee when it is distributed. I am sure they will get all the information they want and therefore they may perhaps be willing to waive their rights and let the bill go through.
I make this plea solely in the belief that this matter is in the interests of the country. I have no interest whatsoever in the bill or its sponsors.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there was one fact brought out in the committee which I think should be placed before hon. members. While this company is planning to take gas to Montana for the Anaconda Copper Company there is a further project in mind. The Montana Power Company which is an affiliate has applied to the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board for two permits. The first permit is of a temporary 80709-1084
6, 1951	1695
Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company nature for five years and is intended to cover gas to be used solely by Anaconda Copper.
I believe the Alberta board has signified its willingness to grant a permit in those terms.
In addition to serving the Anaconda Power Company, the Montana Power Company serves a large part of Montana, if not all of the state. The temporary permit would cover the total requirements of Anaconda Copper and the Montana Power Company would then use Montana gas to supply the civilian users. The request for the temporary permit was endorsed by Mr. Wilson. No objection was taken to help being given on a temporary basis, but the company has a further plan which I think should be watched very carefully by members representing constituencies on the prairies and in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec because the second application is for a permit to export gas generally for civilian use in Montana. Mind you, they are getting a temporary permit but in addition to that they have another application for a further permit which will be for the use of the gas from this field in southeastern Alberta for civilian purposes in the state of Montana. That may mean that Canadians will go short. As hon. members know, there has been a bill passed by the house granting a charter to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. That company proposes to pipe gas from Alberta through Saskatchewan and Manitoba serving centres in those provinces en route, then to Fort William and Port Arthur, through Ontario to Montreal and possibly the city of Quebec. One of the fields from which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited plans to get gas is the same field which is now to be tapped by Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company.
Therefore the time may come when eastern Canada will be very much interested in whether or not this gas from southeastern Alberta goes down to serve people in the state of Montana on a permanent basis rather than on a five-year basis to help out Anaconda. Movements of that kind will have to be watched at all times if we are to have Canada served first by these companies. We may find that there will be an attempt by some other company to pipe gas down into Minneapolis and St. Paul rather than letting it go through to Winnipeg, Toronto, London, Montreal and various other eastern centres. There is always going to be that temptation for these people to shoot it off into the United States at the first opportunity.
The Montana affiliate of Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company certainly has that intention. Eventually they hope to be able to get at least a portion of their requirements for civilian users in the state of Montana from
169G	HOUSE OF
Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company this southeastern Alberta field. The committee approved of the granting of the charter, but that was done, I think, on the basis that the gas is needed for a five-year period by Anaconda Copper. I point out the other feature about this plan to members of the house, particularly those from Ontario and Quebec, so that they may be on the lookout for attempts in the future to divert gas to the United States which will only mean that there will be that much less available in Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: As a member of the standing committee, I understood the committee was unanimous with respect to this matter on the basis of the appeal made for the defence of the United States. Anaconda Copper produce copper of course but they also produce chromium and manganese. They need the gas in connection with the production of chromium and manganese which, together with copper, are so essential for the defence effort. When Mr. Corette of the Anaconda people appeared before the committee I asked him if it really was a serious defence project, if it was for the purpose of making munitions and so on that they needed the gas, and he said yes. He quoted at length from Mr. Wilson, the top man in Washington, with respect to war industries and so forth. I said to him: Why do you not get a message from General MacArthur to put before the committee to doubly reassure some of our doubting Thomases on the committee that this is not a plot to steal gas from Canada and take it to the United States to warm some of their firesides? It is a defence project in Montana. They need the gas, and the situation in the Pacific may be a great deal more serious than we view it tonight.
We hear these little comments with respect to fear in the hearts of the Canadian people about robbing them of their birthright and so on, that it is to be stolen from us. Let me tell you that if the Red armies now opposing General MacArthur on the other side of the Pacific have their way we will not have any rights, any smelter, or any chromium or steel for Mr. Howe and the steel industries of Canada. That is the serious side of the question. I have no particular interest in the matter at all. It involves 26 miles of pipe line within Canada. The people of Alberta want to allow the Americans to have this gas for the purpose of making manganese, chromium and steel for the defence effort. I think it would be gracious of us to pass a bill and let them go ahead with the project.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wish at the outset to point out that I am not opposing the bill. As a matter of fact, as hon. members know, for reasons beyond my control I


have not been able to attend the sessions of the house as regularly as I would like. Consequently I am not as well informed on this bill as I should be. However, I do not think it is sufficient for members who have been on the standing committee and have heard the evidence concerning the bill to say that they are satisfied that everything is in order and that the bill should be passed, and at the same time to tell us that the bill is so tremendously important as a defence measure. If the bill is as important as a defence measure as the hon. member for Cariboo says it is, then it is important enough for the government of Canada to sponsor it and not leave it to a private member.
I listened to the hon. member for Skeena for whose reasonableness on most matters I have a great deal of regard. I do not think it is good policy to say:	Pass the bill now
and when you get the report of the committee I am satisfied you will be satisfied that everything is in order. Surely that is a travesty on parliamentary procedure. Members of the house are entitled to information before the bill is passed because once it is passed by the house it is beyond the control of members to get information. Incidentally, private members assume responsibility for it because it is a private member's bill and not a government measure.
The hon. member for Cariboo said something about General MacArthur and the urgent necessity for the bill to be passed in order to help him out, or some such statement as that. If there is anything I am particularly tired of it is General MacArthur. I wish he would have the good sense to keep his mouth shut and give all his attention to directing the United Nations forces under his command on the field of battle. He should leave political matters to the political leaders of the various countries that have armies in Korea, including Canada. They know more about political matters and they are anxious to leave military matters to those like General MacArthur who know something about them. So I suggest that unless the sponsor of the bill or some member of the committee will answer the questions that have been asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and other questions that may be asked later, it is not proper for us to go on and pass this bill now.


Walter Edward Harris: The evidence heard by the committee is available, and I think it contains the answers to all the questions that have been asked this evening, except perhaps one. That is as to whether they have the steel available. I am not prepared to answer that, and as far as that goes I do not suppose it is a matter of moment

as far as this bill is concerned. If the steel is not available they will not lay the pipe, that is all. Nevertheless I would suggest that we rise and report progress, though I do repeat that the minutes of the committee are available.


Donald MacInnis: Available to whom, may I ask?


Walter Edward Harris: All members of the house may get copies if they wish. As the hon. member has said, there was no opposition to the bill. Certain amendments were made, but all clauses as they now appear were eventually carried by the committee without opposition. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, if there are any other questions about the bill that any hon. member feels he should ask, this is the time to ask them, so they will be on record and available next Tuesday.


Mr. Ferguson:: Outside the iron curtain news travels freely, by newspaper and other methods, and we hear what General Mac-Arthur is supposed to have said but never did say and all the rest of it. If General MacArthur could only read what has been said by people who do not know anything about war-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am glad he does not, because he might stop winning the Korean war if he read some of the things being said about him by people who do not know anything about war but who are always glad to accept the protection of an experienced soldier.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I support the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East as to the fact that the sponsor of the bill is not in the house.


Walter Edward Harris: If I may interrupt, my hon. friends who are making remarks of that kind perhaps would not do so if they know the reason for the absence of the hon. member sponsoring the bill. Perhaps it would be as well to leave it at that. If delay is required, I suggest that we rise and report progress.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



HORTENSE MARIE THERESE LOIESE NEVEU

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 164, for the relief of Hortense Marie Therese Loiese Neveu.
Private Bills-Divorce


George Alexander Cruickshank: should like to say a word on this, and I am doing so because the people of my riding asked me to. Other hon. members may not believe in bringing before this house everything the people in their ridings ask them to bring, but I believe in doing that. Incidentally I just came back from a most successful visit to my riding which happens to be the most beautiful, most successful and, in all modesty, the best represented riding in this country.
I am very glad the hon. member sponsoring these bills is here to answer questions. Let me direct my remarks to the first bill, and if I cannot pronounce the name it is because I am not familiar with divorce cases. That is Bill No. 164, letter Z-5 of the Senate. I like to use that word "Senate" because I am entitled to do so in this case; otherwise I have to refer to it as the other place. This is an act for the relief of Hortense Marie Therese Loiese Neveu. I am sure the sponsor will be able to say whether there are any children, and if so how they are to be looked after in the future, and who is going to educate them. We hear a great deal about juvenile delinquency these days; that is one of the greatest problems we have to face. I believe if there were fewer divorces we would not have so much juvenile delinquency. So I would like the sponsor to explain to me who is going to be responsible for the bringing up of the children, if there are any. Coming from the prairie provinces as he does, I am sure he is vitally interested in that matter, just as I am interested in it coming from the far Pacific where we have probably greater natural advantages for bringing up children than anywhere else in Canada.
I do not like to speak about the Fraser valley any oftener than I am compelled to, but there we have the second consolidated school district to be formed in Canada. We could tie that in with some previous discussions in this house, because we were able to bring that about through the assistance of the Rockefeller foundation. That foundation resulted from the great development of gas and oil, and because of their generosity we were able to establish a consolidated school area in Fraser valley of which we are very proud. That, together with the very low divorce rate in Fraser Valley, has prevented juvenile delinquency from developing to any great extent.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.

Private Bills-Divorce


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will be glad to sit
down if my hon. friend would like to take over. In the meantime I would suggest that some hon. members might acquire wisdom by emulating the performance of the little white dog in the famous copyright symbol of a certain phonograph company. Check it up and see what it was. As I was saying, we are vitally interested in the sanctity of marriage and many of us do not believe that the present divorce laws are adequate. Many of us do not believe that the divorce laws as they are now are sufficient. I am not against divorce. I am a little surprised, because you know I come from a rural riding, Mr. Speaker, at not hearing more about this particular type of bill from some of the rural ridings in the province of Quebec. I understand, sir, that the reason these bills come before us is that the people of Quebec have certain distinct ideas concerning divorce. Some of those ideas spring from religious convictions. One of the main reasons, however, as I understand it, that the people of the province of Quebec have such distinct ideas on divorce is due to the magnificent home life that they lead in that province. It is one of the oldest parts of Canada, and one of the finest settlements. In that province farms are handed down from family to family. The province of Quebec, as well as Ontario, has a great tradition of family life. I am indeed surprised that more has not been said by the members from Quebec about the looseness in the method of handing out divorces. Possibly their constituents do not desire them to talk about this matter in the house. On the other hand, my constituents do want me to bring it before you.
As an individual, I believe in divorce, but also as an individual I believe the present divorce laws are not adequate. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have divorce at all, I do not believe it should be handled by the members sitting in this chamber. I was not elected to be a judge in divorce cases, nor am I qualified to do so. I will not dispute the fact that there may be other members who can grasp the subject quicker than I can, merely by reading one of these lists.


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to raise a point of order? I came to his assistance on another bill a moment ago, but I now wish to point out that the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is out of order. We are not discussing the general principle of divorce, but a certain bill granting relief. The hon. member must confine his remarks to that bill.


Howard Charles Green: There are five bills.


Donald MacInnis: There may be all kinds of bills but the hon. member mentioned one, if I recall correctly Bill No. 164. He will have to deal with that one, and if he is going to talk about divorce he will have to talk about that particular bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon, member to confine his remarks to the parts of this bill.


Howard Charles Green: We are apparently debating five or six bills at once. What is the ruling in a case like that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If it is the desire of the house to deal with these bills separately, then the first is still Bill No. 164, and I would ask the member for Fraser Valley to confine himself to that bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry that I was out of order. I believe, sir, you will appreciate the fact that it is most unusual for me to be out of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to be in order by discussing this case. I did not realize that by mentioning one bill I had to confine my remarks to it. I have heard them grouped from one to one hundred and forty-two and passed. I am not referring to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), for whose judgment I have the greatest respect, next to yours, sir. No one in this house knows the rules better, other than yourself, sir, or is more fair. I have no objection, but I have heard a hundred and forty-two bills read as a group. I bow to your ruling, sir, and I shall confine myself to the one bill.
Perhaps I had better put on the record, sir, that I am confining my remarks to item 14 on the order paper which reads as follows:
Second reading of Bill No. 164 (Letter Z-5 of the Senate), intituled "An act for the relief of Hortense Marie Therese Loiese Neveu."-Mr. Winkler.-E.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does that mean?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Incidentally, so the
record will1 be quite clear, I am quoting from Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day of April 6, at page 13. That is a very good page, because I was born on the 13th. I should like to know from the sponsor of this bill, because there are-I shall not say more important matters coming before the house tonight than the possible wrecking of this family. Perhaps I had better keep to that family of Mrs. Neveu-I presume she was Mrs. I do not want to see this family wrecked. When I say there are other matters coming before us tonight, nothing could be more important nor more worthy of the time taken, Mr. Speaker, when we spend hours and hours
APRIL ei, 1951
debating whether we shall take up unnecessary gold. Surely, we can spend part of one hour debating whether a family is to be torn asunder. I believe even the members from Ontario and Quebec will agree to that.
We shall take this particular bill to which I must confine myself. I am interested, Mr. Speaker, in knowing whether Mrs. Hortense Marie Therese Loiese Neveu has any children. If the member who is sponsoring this bill would prefer to answer my questions one at a time or as a group, he can say so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the time to ask questions is when the bill comes before the committee of the whole house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I bow to your judgment, Mr. Speaker. I would even bow to your ruling if you did not have the authority, sir. It seems strange to me, however, that I get so much advice that I must not discuss the sanctity of family life, especially when there are so many members from the great province of Ontario here. I might not be here when the bills come up next time. Am I not permitted to put on record, for the people of my riding, what great organizations in the province of British Columbia apparently think of this particular bill? I cannot see why I am not permitted to put on the record what a percentage at least of the people of the province of British Columbia think of this particular divorce bill. Surely, that must be in order. I bow to your ruling, sir, but for instance consider this and see if it does not apply. As a matter of fact, now that I look at it I believe this particular letter was written concerning the bill for relief of Hortense Marie Therese Loiese Neveu. It is dated February 21, and to show that this feeling is not limited to the people of my riding, this particular letter comes from 2548 Pandora street, Vancouver, B.C. There is some reference to Vancouver. I do not know which riding it is in, or why the lady wrote to me. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Cruickshank:
Is it not possible for you members of parliament to do something about reforming our divorce law? There is so much suffering and loneliness caused on account of our present law, surely we should have desertion and incurable insanity as grounds.
I can quite understand that if you bring in incurable insanity it would probably cover quite a bit of territory. I continue:
The way things are now there are a great many illicit unions that would be made legal, and a lot of illegitimate children that would have their rightful name if we had more humane divorce laws.
Then I have another one from Chilliwack. Chilliwack is entitled to a positive view on
Private Bills-Divorce
this particular case or any other one regarding the sanctity of the family. Chilliwack is the leading agricultural town in the Dominion of Canada, in the centre of the great Fraser valley. It is right in the midst of that valley, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to know what is out of order about referring to one's constituency. I think any hon. member should be proud to refer to his constituency, although it might work in. reverse in so far as some constituencies are concerned. As I said, here is a letter from Chilliwack. I am sorry that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) is not in the house because this writer knew that the hon. member for Spadina would unquestionably be interested in. this particular bill, letter Z-5 of the Senate. This is what the letter says:
Recently Mr. Croll suggested a divorce reform. I was very disappointed to note he had no support. I hear this from many sources, also. Our divorce laws are antiquated and stupid, and not even human. I think our members of parliament should have supported this man's views and given us people who are supposed to be living in democracy a square deal. No one wants to go behind the fence and pay crooked lawyers-
Oh, that could not be true.
-big sums to get a divorce, but it's done all the time. Let's have a change.
This letter is right from the hub of the Fraser valley. I am absolutely confident that this particular bill, letter Z-5 of the Senate, an act for the relief of Hortense Marie Therese Loiese Neveu, is the one that the writer has in mind. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, because a great many people are interested. Probably some of my friends would like to take over from me. They can do so if they wish.


Mr. Weir:: You have only five minutes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I have a letter from the divorce reform league of British Columbia, P.O. Box 276, Vancouver. It is dated January 31, 1951, and addressed to myself.


Mr. Hatfield:: Potatoes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, it has nothing to do with potatoes at all. It reads as follows:
George A. Cruickshank, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
The attached memorandum, outlining the aims and objects of the divorce reform league of British Columbia, is herewith forwarded for your perusal and kind consideration.

Private Bills-Divorce
They knew very well, Mr. Speaker, that this particular case, letter Z-5 of the Senate, was coming up tonight. I continue:
In so far as the Canadian laws with respect to marriage and divorce are concerned, the divorce reform league of British Columbia wishes to go on record as advocating legislation closely patterned after that now in effect in Great Britain* and which the league feels to be more consistent with the needs of Canadians.
The league therefore earnestly requests that you give serious consideration to subscribing to an enabling act of parliament which would grant to each province now empowered to try its own divorce cases, the additional power to decide what constitutes grounds for divorce.
Judging by the attitude of some provinces, that may not be advisable. The letter continues:
The foregoing communication to you has been authorized by unanimous motion passed by the divorce reform league of British Columbia at a general meeting held in the Pender auditorium, 339 West Pender street, Vancouver, British Columbia, on Thursday, January 25, 1951.
Respectfully yours,
S. V. Boyce, Secretary.
*Ref. Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937 1 Edw. VIII, and Geo. VI, Ch. 57.
I am sure they were referring to this particular individual case, Mr. Speaker. This is the form of the declaration:
Societies Act Schedule 1
Divorce Reform League of British Columbia Declaration
1.	The name of the Society is "Divorce Reform League of British Columbia."
2.	The objects of the society are:
For the true support of marriage, the protection of children, the removal of hardship, the reduction of illicit unions and unseemly litigation, and the restoration of due respect for the law, to promote by every lawful means the amendment of existing parliamentary legislation relating to matrimonial causes to provide for:
(1)	The addition of the following grounds for divorce:
(a)	The desertion by a spouse of the petitioning spouse without cause for a period of at least three (3) years immediately preceding the petition for divorce.
(b)	The treating with cruelty by a spouse of the petitioning spouse.
(c)	Incurable unsoundness of mind of a spouse after continuous care and treatment for a period of at least five (5) years immediately preceding the petition for divorce.
(d)	Reasonable grounds for supposing that a spouse is dead.
(e)	Habitual commission of criminal acts by a spouse.
(2)	The addition of the following grounds for the annulment of marriage:
(a) The suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form by a spouse at the time of marriage if unknown to the petitioning spouse at that time.

(b) The unsoundness of mind of a spouse at the time of marriage if unknown to the petitioning spouse at that time.
(3)	Free legal aid to any persons who otherwise would be unable to avail themselves of a remedy at law in matrimonial causes owing to lack of funds.
(4)	A discretionary power in a judge in matrimonial causes to forbid or limit newspaper reports of such causes.
(5)	Any other provision pertaining to matrimonial causes which the society may in general meeting adopt.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried, and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, several members of the committee which considered the pipe line bill we were dealing with a few moments ago have drawn my attention to the fact that I did not correctly state the situation with respect to steel. It appears that in the evidence given before the committee it was stated that the pipe had been purchased in Canada and was on the ground ready for use.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Prudham-Mr. Dion in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend' the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to modify its application with reference to the last quarter of the year 1950 and to extend the application of the act in a modified form to the year 1951.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain how much money was spent under this act in each of the years, and how much it is expected will be required for the present fiscal year?


George Prudham: The figures for the years previous to 1949 are all listed in the annual report. I have the figures up to date but I prefer to give them when the bill is before the house. I understand we are dealing with the principle now.


Howard Charles Green: Oh no. I understand this is the minister's first resolution. However, I think we are entitled to have those figures.

If he has not the figures with him tonight I shall not press the matter.


George Prudham: I shall be glad to give them when the bill is before the house.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not have them tonight?


George Prudham: I have the annual reports here.


Howard Charles Green: Cannot the minister tell how much was spent in 1949 and 1950, and how much it is expected will be required in 1951?


George Prudham: I have all that information but I hope to give it when the bill is up for second reading. I do not think it is required at this time.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is quite wrong in that. I have asked how much money was spent in 1949 and 1950. That is the information to which the committee is entitled. How much is it expected will be required in 1951?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: We are discussing the
principle of the resolution. The hon. member may ask his questions when the bill is before the committee of the whole.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I should say why it
is important that these questions be answered. Members from British Columbia have received a memorandum from the mining association of that province in which it is set out that under the proposed plan the assistance to the gold mines in the province will be a great deal smaller than it was in 1950. We want the information to find out whether or not that statement is correct. Because if it is correct, then I for one wish to make submissions now, before the bill is brought down, in the hope that there will be changes made in the bill to meet the situation. It is not just a case of being on a fishing expedition. The minister has admitted he has the information, and I do not think there is any doubt that it should be given to us.


George Prudham: Estimated payments on
account of 1950 will be affected by the provisions of the bill, and I cannot say with accuracy what that will be until the bill is passed.


Howard Charles Green: No.


George Prudham: I can say this, that we
expect we will spend $3 million more under the new amendment than we did last year.


Howard Charles Green: What was spent in 1950?


George Prudham: The payments for 1950 are not complete, because the last three months are affected by the amendment we are about to introduce.
Gold Mining


Howard Charles Green: The minister has an estimate
of what will have been spent in 1950-what is that estimate? He must have had some figure on which to base his estimate that there will be an increased expenditure of $3 million.


George Prudham: Yes, we anticipate that
about $9,200,000 will be paid on account of 1950.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: On the old
basis, or is that importing the new basis for the last three months?


George Prudham: That is an estimate of both.


Howard Charles Green: Then is it estimated that in
1951 the total expenditure will be $12,200,000?


George Prudham: It is estimated that assistance payments to gold mines in the designated year 1950 will increase from approximately $7,200,000 to approximately $10,500,000 for the year 1951.


Howard Charles Green: Then the figure for 1950 is
$7,200,000, and not $9,200,000.


George Prudham: Yes, apparently it iswithout considering the new amendment.


Howard Charles Green: And that figure for 1950 is
including the increase for the last quarter?


George Prudham: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the mining association in British Columbia is quite correct when it says that there is to be an additional $3 million paid to the gold-mining industry?


George Prudham: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: That being so, why is it that
these gold mines in British Columbia are to be cut by at least one-third of the assistance they have had in previous years?


George Prudham: I did not see the brief from the British Columbia association until a few minutes ago. I sent it up to my deputy in the gallery, to get his opinion upon it; but I am quite sure they are wrong in their calculations.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention of the legislation to increase payments generally in all parts of the country?


George Prudham: The formula will apply
differently in different parts of the country, depending upon the operations of the mine. We have no way of forecasting what the payment will be to any one mine. It depends upon production, costs, and so on. I do not think it is possible to estimate accurately what the payments would be in any one province.


Howard Charles Green: But the changes are obviously being made for the purpose of increasing
1702

Gold Mining
the payment. What I And it hard to understand is that the gold mines in British Columbia, instead of getting larger payments, are to have their payments cut. If that is so, there must be some error in the method being used to arrive at the amount of the payments. Is that the intention of the legislation, or has a mistake been made in the case of British Columbia? If so will such mistake be rectified? Obviously it would mean that some different formula is being used.


George Prudham: There is a different formula being used, one which is modified slightly. I can say that there is a slight shift being made in the rate to favour the higher cost mines. It is not a big difference, but that is the change that is anticipated; and it is also anticipated that the assistance will apply to a larger number of ounces produced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is alleged that the fact that the formula is now being modified so that more assistance will be available to the high-cost mines has the effect of reducing the assistance to the lower cost mines. On the face of it that might seem to be justified if stated as a simple proposition. I think you must realize the fact that lower-cost mines, perhaps the more efficient producers, are now faced with increased costs notwithstanding their efficiency. Those costs have increased over what they were last year in virtue of increases in wages and increased cost of materials entering into their production. It will be seen that even though they are efficient producers and what are classified as low-cost operations, nevertheless they are being penalized or discriminated against in the amount of assistance made available. In spite of the fact that they have tried to cut down their costs, they find that their costs are still increasing. It will be seen that this will have a prejudicial effect on such operations as Bralorne and Pioneer. That is the result that they fear and are convinced they will be faced with.


George Prudham: Is my hon. friend suggesting that the company that is making favourable profits should be subsidized?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That statement does not seem to me to get to the root of the issue at all. I made it quite clear this afternoon that I felt that there was a solution which would permanently solve this question and remove from the gold mines the necessity of having to come here for assistance. I suggested that the solution was to give them a free market for gold. Apparently the government is not willing to introduce that set of circumstances

which would enable the gold mines to stand on their own feet. The government is attempting to work out a formula for assistance and surely we are entitled to ask that that formula should not penalize the efficient operators and producers.
I am saying that they have a definite feeling that they are going to be penalized by the formula as they understand it. I think the reason is to be found in what the minister has just said, that this formula is designed to benefit the high-cost producer. Is the minister in a position to give us any definite assurance that this modified formula will not in effect penalize or have the effect of reducing the assistance to the large scale, low-cost producers?


George Prudham: I am quite sure that when the bill is introduced hon. members will be satisfied that there is no discrimination against efficient producers. In my opinion there is an ample spread allowed for the most efficient mine to make plenty of money without being penalized. The rate of assistance starts at a figure which will give any mine whose costs are below that figure a chance to make a legitimate profit and meet present-day conditions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I must admit to being a little bit in the clouds on this issue. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said that apparently there is quite a substantial increase, and the minister has given figures which indicate an increase from $7,200,000 to perhaps $10,500,000. That is an increase of $3,300,000, or approximately 50 per cent, over last year. And, as he said, that is not taking into consideration adjustments for the last three months of the preceding year. This is about a 46 per cent increase. The minister has referred to it as a slight shift, but it seems to me that it is more than a slight shift, it is a major operation. I cannot understand why with such an increase any group of producers could be penalized.


George Prudham: I have a full statement containing all the statistics which I am prepared to give when the bill is introduced. I think I was right in the first place and we should stick to the principle of the resolution and not deal with the statistics at the present time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think it was shown this afternoon that all who have participated in this debate wished to be helpful and constructive. I think it is a mistake for the minister to withhold statistics until the bill is up for second reading or in the committee stage thereafter. It seems to me that the whole purpose of discussing a resolution in

committee is that all information and details necessary for the proper understanding and debate of the bill on second reading can be made available.
I am not going to deal further with the point that has latterly been under discussion.
I think that as long as you have an artificial basis of assistance to an industry, such as is embodied in this act, you are bound' to have a situation that unquestionably will create discriminations. You cannot avoid them. I am not suggesting that those who drafted the bill have not done their best to avoid them; undoubtedly they have, but the whole method of assistance involved in this legislation is artificial in nature. It seems to me that so long as there is artificiality in our approach to this problem there are bound to be discriminations. Until we come to grips with the problem in an attempt to solve it at its roots we are bound to have these unfortunate discriminations.
A reference has been made, which I do not quite follow, to a 46 per cent increase in gold production this year.


Howard Charles Green: Payments, not gold production.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I followed the minister correctly this afternoon he stated that the payments for 1951 would be between $10 million and $11 million. That is actually a reduction as compared with 1949; it is not an increase at all. The report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950, shows at page nine that for 1949 the approved payments totalled $12,230,359.42. According to the report it is estimated that the total amount of assistance payable, including all commitments to be made in the next fiscal year in respect to obligations relating to the designated year of 1949, will amount to approximately $13 million.
Actually what happened is that there is a reduction in 1950 as compared with 1949 of about $2,500,000 or something like 20 per cent. Therefore we are not increasing the payments; the payments are showing a reduction. Can the minister give the number of producers who received benefits under the act in 1950? I think that would be interesting as showing the trend. I do not know whether the trend in 1950 as compared with 1949 was up or down, but it will be recalled that this afternoon I gave the figures for the first two years of the operation of this act. In 1948, 111 producers received benefits under the act, and in 1949 the number dropped to 95.


George Prudham: My understanding of the purpose of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is that it was to meet an 80709-1094
Gold Mining
emergent situation. The intention of the government at that time was that it would help the industry over an emergency and that eventually it would be able to stand on its own feet. It was expected that the rate of assistance would gradually taper off until the mines were self-sufficient. It has not worked out exactly that way because of inflation and other reasons. Although the mines have got back to efficient operation their costs have been rising. For that reason we propose to extend the provisions of the act for another year on a slightly modified scale.
The hon. member for Eglinton this afternoon criticized the proposal because it did not contain any long-term solution. It never was intended as a long-term solution. It is just an emergency measure. He referred to the international monetary fund and the Bretton Woods agreement. He spoke favourably of the way South Africa had broken with the fund, and how they were getting a premium for their gold on the world market. In my opinion if the whole world went on the free market the high price might not be maintained. It is my opinion that it is because of the restricted volume on the world market that these high premium prices are paid. I may be wrong in that assumption but I have talked to many mining men who are rather doubtful that the price would remain at that high level if we established a free market. However, that is just an opinion and no one really knows.
The fact remains that our country entered into the Bretton Woods agreement with other nations of the world. Canada is a signatory thereto, and as long as we intend to honour our international obligations we have to abide by the provisions of the agreement until they are changed in an orderly manner. I am not trying to defend the Bretton Woods agreement, but as long as Canada is a signatory to it we have to abide by its terms.
The hon. member for Lethbridge made sarcastic remarks about the government referring to the fund before introducing this amendment. Canada's action was just a matter of good international etiquette, if you will, honouring one of our international obligations. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, made a brief reference to that when he made his statement to the house. He said:
All I need add at this moment is that this modification in our gold assistance formula has been discussed with the fund which has raised no objection.


Solon Earl Low: It could have.


George Prudham: The amendment forecast by the resolution is not a radical change. It continues fairly closely the pattern that has

Gold Mining
been followed for the last three years. It makes a slight alteration in the rate and, as I said before, it is proposed that it will apply to a greater number of ounces and give encouragement to mines for greater production.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I should enter a word of correction in the light of the statement just made by the minister. He attributed to me a statement that I had favourably-that was his expression-commented upon the action of the government of South Africa. I wish to correct that. I referred to the action of the government of South Africa in releasing a portion of the gold production of that country for sale on the free market. I did not comment on it either favourably or unfavourably. What I said was it was a fact of which account must be taken. When the world's greatest gold producer releases a large portion of the gold production of that country for sale on the free market it seems to me that Canada can no longer allow herself to be shackled in the way in which she is shackled today. I made it quite clear there must be no departure on our part from international obligations. That is not to say that we are to sit still with hands folded. The whole burden of my remarks was to the effect that in the face of this situation we must face up to the fact that the Bretton Woods agreement is working a very great hardship on the gold producers of this country.
There are ways in which that agreement can be changed. I think the time arrived some time ago,-it certainly has arrived now- when it is our duty as the parliament of the Canadian nation to undertake to initiate measures to bring about needed changes in the Bretton Woods agreement in order that justice may be won for the gold producers of Canada.
Having said that by way of correction of the interpretation put on my remarks by the minister, may I return now to ask him for the figure as to the number of producers who received assistance under the act during the year 1950.


George Prudham: I am sorry; 75 have so far received assistance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That indicates what I feared, a very definite continuation of a downward trend in the number of producers receiving assistance under the act. Just note these figures: 1948, the first year, 111; 1949, the second year, 95; 1950, the third year, 75, a very drastic reduction. It simply comes down to this, that in view of the terms of the legislation, in view of the way in which it is being administered with this very artificial 
formula, the number of producers to whom the act brings any assistance has shown quite sharp reductions. In the face of the crippling problem confronting the gold mining industry today, with rapidly rising costs and a firm ceiling fixed on the price at which they may sell their product, it seems to me the figures given to the committee now by the minister emphasize more clearly than ever the utter insufficiency of this measure as an expedient to meet the needs of the Canadian gold producers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understood the minister to say a few minutes ago that the assistance to be provided to gold mines requiring assistance under the act would be sufficient to pay present operating costs and leave a margin to pay a legitimate profit. If that is correct I should like to ask the minister this question. In using the phrase "to pay present operating costs" does he mean that under the terms of the act the gold miners working in the mines covered by the act will from this point on be paid wages equal to those of miners working in the base metal industry.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to answer that question. In order to make clear what I intended to say before, the formula that we propose to introduce will apply to those mines that need assistance rather than to those that do not, and the floor above which the assistance applies is low enough that all mines that can operate and produce at a cost below that floor will have ample opportunity to make a profit.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister says he cannot answer my question. It is obvious that the minister intends that, regardless of the scale of wages paid, the mines will make a profit.


Mr. Gibson:: He did not say that.


George Prudham: I think these questions can all be answered much better when the bill is printed and before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I in all friendliness suggest to the minister that this controversy might come to an end if he would put on the record now the table of statistics to which he has referred so that members may have the opportunity to see it in print and study it before we debate the bill on second reading.
I think that will be helpful to the house and in the long run will probably grealty reduce the scope and length of debate.


George Prudham: I am very anxious to please the opposition, and if I have your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will put this statement on record tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it a statement, or does it contain figures?


George Prudham: It is a complete statement.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?


John Horne Blackmore: There seems to me to be some difference of opinion as to what may take place while the resolution is before the committee. Any member who desires any information at all pertaining to the matter under consideration is entitled to ask for that information and have the answer given. That is one of the safeguards we have, as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out, to assure hon. members that they are not working in the dark. So I suggest that the minister give the details he thinks the committee requires so we may comprehend what he is aiming at in the bill.


George Prudham: If I give this statement I do not want hon. members opposite to demand the bill so they can see whether or not I am right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We cannot get the bill until the resolution passes.


George Prudham: This statement deals with proposals that will be set out in the amending bill when it is printed. We are probably getting a little ahead of ourselves, but I see no real objection to putting this statement on record now provided hon. members will bear with me until the bill is printed before offering too much criticism.
Hon. members will recall that the reason for introducing the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in December, 1947, was to assist the primary gold producers in meeting the increased cost of production of gold. After experiencing a very difficult period during the last war, they faced a major reconstruction job including the recruitment of working forces, rehabilitation of mining and milling plant, development of new ore reserves and the restoration of efficient capacity operation. Wages and other costs of production had risen very substantially. It was hoped that at the end of the three year assistance period, that is at the end of 1950, more normal operating conditions and costs would be experienced by the gold operators. I would like to state that the payment of cost-aid has been of great assistance to the operators and has most satisfactorily served the purpose for which it was chiefly designed. The mines have been rehabilitated and restored to efficient operation. But for the assistance rendered by the government to the industry, many of the high cost mines would have been compelled to close. However, because of a certain amount of inflation which has occurred, the gold mining industry now experiences still higher costs of supplies, labour and other services
Gold Mining
for the production of gold, while the price of the product of the mines remains the same as in 1947. It is thus apparent that the gold mines now are more in need of assistance than they were formerly if the gold mining industry is to be kept alive.
In my statement earlier today I indicated the importance of the gold mining industry in the Canadian economy. I would like again to stress this important relationship. The gold mining industry has been a pioneer in the development of northern Canada. Owing to the fact that gold can be readily transported without the building of expensive railroads, gold mines have been established in the north country where few transportation facilities are available. In many cases the mining of gold has drawn attention to the areas in which the gold mines are situated with the resultant discovery of commercial base metal and strategic mineral deposits which are essential for maintaining a high industrial economy as well as for defence production. This is true in northwestern Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and the Northwest Territories. Base metal mines, however, cannot operate without adequate transportation facilities. Consequently further development has led to the building of railroads into the north country and the settling of communities around the mines in order to supply products, particularly those of the forest and agriculture, to the mining communities. Thus the growth of Canada's northern development has been dependent on the search for gold.
The gold mines now in operation give employment to about 23,000 people. In addition to employees and dependent communities directly supported by the gold mines, employment is sustained in cities and towns across Canada where machinery and supplies are manufactured and agricultural and forest products are grown. Many isolated centres are directly dependent upon one or two mines for existence. Assistance to the gold mining industry means an incentive to both the prospector and the financier who provides funds for development to bring the prospective mine to the production stage. The incentive to the prospector means that new mines, both gold and base metals, will be discovered. In view of the present fast rate of depletion of metal mines, owing to the great defence demands of the past eleven or twelve years, it is essential that old mines be replaced by new mines if the mining industry is to retain its position of providing a billion dollar yearly income for Canada and the necessary strategic metals for defence.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do I understand the minister is placing these two appendices on Hansard with the consent of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Prudham: Appendix B is as follows: Appendix B
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
Examples Showing the Application of Assistance Formula in 1951
1.	Old Mine
Assume a mine's production to be 30,000 ounces of gold in 1949, the base year, and that the production in 1951 is 40,000 ounces at a cost of $40 per ounce.
. [DOT]. Assistance Payments (40.00 - $22.00) (40,000 -iX30,000) =$225,000.00.
2.	Old Mine
Assume a mine's production to be 30,000 ounces of gold in 1949, the base year, and that the production in 1951 is 20,000 at a cost of $50 per ounce.
Supply-Agriculture
The rate of assistance in this case will be the maximum of $11.50 which is used when the cost is $45 per ounce or over.
.-. Assistance Payment=$11.50X(20,000X1) =$115,-000.09
3.	Old Mine
Assume a mine's production to be 30,000 ounces of gold in 1949, the base year, and that the production in 1951 is 50,000 ounces at a cost of $22 per ounce.
. [DOT]. Assistance Payment= \ ($22.00-$22.00) (50,000 -1X30,000) = nil.
4.	New Mine
Assume that a mine commences its first year of production on January 1, 1951, and produces 30,000 ounces during 1951 at a cost of $50.
The maximum rate of assistance of $11.50 is used.
.-. Assistance Payment=$11.50 x30,000=$345,000.00.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Prudham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 194, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, $336,942.
Mr. Ross (Souris):: If the minister wishes to make a statement, it is all right with me.


Mr. Gardiner:: I should like to make a short statement. The item is departmental administration, and throughout all the years I have been here it has been customary to have a sort of general discussion on that item. I have no objection to that being done on this occasion. I should like to call attention to the fact that the total amount in the general estimates for 1951-52 is $53,131,838, and the total amount for last year showing in these estimates is $81,805,497. That is the total amount which was in the general estimates last year plus the amount of the supplementaries, so that there is not an actual decrease of $28,673,659-or at least there will not be by the time the supplementaries are included.
One of the largest items that make up the $28,673,659 is shown here on page 7, appropriations not required for 1951-52, and the amounts which are involved there are shown on page 118. At the bottom of the page there is shown "Appropriations not required for 1951-52", and there is an item for losses on the purchase, sale and export of agricultural

Supply-Agriculture
products, $4,350,000. Last year we agreed to pay a subsidy on hogs sold by way of Wiltshire sides to Great Britain, and on cheese, and the amount voted was not all used. The vote here shows $4,350,000. The second amount is required to recoup the agricultural prices support account, $3,484,918. Then, there is assistance to apple growers, $2 million, and that is the apple growers of British Columbia. There is assistance to the apple growers of Nova Scotia, $500,000. Those four items make up a total of $10,334,918. Those items are not to be voted this year.
The second largest item is to be found in vote 39, freight assistance on western feed grains. Now, that is not properly designated a reduction because the amount quoted there is simply the amount to carry us through until the end of the crop year. The practice has been to bring in the supplementaries later to take in further payments which are to be made. The difference there is simply the difference between the amount which was voted last year in the general estimates, plus the amount put in the supplementaries. On this occasion we only have the original amount to deal with, as we had in the general estimates last year.
Those are the two big items which make up the greater part of the amount. A smaller item is one of $2,081,000 which covers the major irrigation and water conservation projects. Of that amount, $800,000 is due to the fact we are coming towards the completion of the St. Mary's project in Alberta and because we are near the end of the project we do not require as much this year as was voted a year ago. The amount is approximately $800,000 down. There are some other items from the over-all activities in connection with irrigation which account for the other $1,200,000. Those are the usual items that make up part of the reduction; but I may say we estimate that when the supplementaries are all in there will be a reduction, as compared with the actual expenditures, of about $12 million in the total estimate. That is all I think that I would care to say at the moment. As I said at the beginning, the discussions at this stage have usually been of a general nature, and we welcome discussions of that kind at this time.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I am
glad to have that statement from the minister because in these estimates for the year the reduction of $28,500,000 did seem a very heavy decrease. I had anticipated it would not be that much after the supplementary estimates had been tabled that the minister speaks of. But there is a matter that I should

like to make reference to at this time because on another occasion many statements were made that agriculture, especially in western Canada, has had a period of five of the most prosperous years in the history of this country.
However, that discussion referred only to income. I never heard the Minister of Agriculture or any other minister say that these farmers had also gone through a period of five of the most expensive production years in the history of this country. I think that should be brought out.
The reason that I want to deal with this now in particular is that we had one of the minister's colleagues, the Minister of Justice, addressing several farm meetings throughout the province of Manitoba, in fact in Marquette, his own constituency. I thought probably he was briefed by the Minister of Agriculture. If not, certainly he had followed him very attentively on some occasions because his arguments were very difficult to follow through by anyone who was a farmer, at least.
He pointed out how well off the farmers had been through those five years and are today, the most prosperous period in the history of this country. But he never referred to the greatly increased production costs of those five years, and to the increase in cost right today.
I know the minister believes in the small family farm. I think most of us do. But those statements about this prosperous period are not true for the small family farm in this country. The large opertaor with modern equipment may be getting along, and may be having a prosperous time of it, but I hold in may hand the Economic Annalist, put out by the Department of Agriculture, dated December, 1950. At page 137 we find the following heading:
The Farm Business in the Gilbert Plains and Sifton Areas of Manitoba. 1949
It is a survey by J. G. MacKenzie and T. O. Riecken, and reads as follows:
The investigation of the farm business in the Gilbert Plains and Sifton areas is part of a comprehensive inquiry into economic and social problems associated with the utilization of land in Manitoba.
Farther on in the page it states:
The business year 1948-49. The period covered by the farm business record was June 1, 1948, to May 31, 1949. The 1948 crop year was a normal one for this area in which crop yields are fairly stable.
Then on page 138, dealing with the farm size and tenure it says:
The farms of the area are small; nearly half are farms of one-quarter section, slightly more than a third are half-section farms and the remainder are

larger than a half-section. The average size was 300 acres in the Gilbert Plains area and 257 in the Sifton area.
These areas are in the federal constituency of Dauphin, bordering on Marquette, the riding represented by the Minister of Justice, who was making these speeches. It is right alongside that area. There are several pages of this, giving very useful detail.
Then on page 139 there is a table showing the average farm capital in the Gilbert Plains and Sifton areas for the years 1948 and 1949. It shows real estate, machinery and equipment, livestock, feeds and1 supplies and seed. In the Gilbert Plains area the average per farm was $15,837; the average in the Sifton area was $8,341.
Then it deals with the average livestock of various kinds per farm, and on page 140 it says:
The cost of operating and repairing all farm machinery and equipment averaged $498 in the Sifton area and $1,018 in the Gilbert Plains area. If the costs of depreciation and investment in machinery were added to the current operating costs, these figures would probably be increased about 40 per cent.
Then page 141 deals with the size of the farms and the labour income. Table 5 follows which shows that in the Gilbert Plains area this survey was conducted on 81 farms and in the Sifton area on 80 farms, which was a fair number for a detailed survey. On page 142 we find the following:
While the farms of the Gilbert Plains area are generally more productive than the farms of the Sifton area, the returns from the quarter-section farms in both areas are generally too low to provide sufficient surplus to provide for the living of the operator and his family. After allowing for an average expenditure for living expenses of $939 in the Gilbert Plains area and $916 in the Sifton area, the net income on these farms in the former area was minus $208, and in the latter area minus $240, which indicates that part of the cost of maintaining the family could not be paid out of current farm revenue. The half-section farms at Sifton had a net income of $160 and at Gilbert Plains the same size farm had a net income of $469 over living Expenses.
That is a survey carried out by officials of the department itself, and I think it should be proof of how prosperous many of these farmers have been throughout those years, and are today.
May I say a word as to present conditions? We have had considerable alarm throughout the country with respect to the rapidly rising increase in the cost of living. It increased steadily month by month for the twelve months of 1950. It has been increasing much more rapidly since the first of this year. We had an increase announced just the other day, bringing the index up to 179-7-a terrific increase there. That is
Supply-Agriculture
very burdensome on all the people of this nation. The statistical survey of the Bank of Canada for February, 1950, gives the farm prices of agricultural products. It is a very interesting chart, because while it shows the average through Canada for 1950 of 249-3, it gives the averages by provinces. If you take these figures and compare them with the final month of the year it will give you a picture of the trend throughout the various parts of this nation. I will give the provinces. For 1950 the average in Prince Edward Island was 188-3; for Nova Scotia, 206-2; for New Brunswick, 216; for Quebec, 260-6; for Ontario, 264-7; for Manitoba, 255-5; for Saskatchewan, 226-4; for Alberta, 253-9; for British Columbia, 243-8; and then the average that I spoke of for all Canada, 249-3.
Then for December of 1950, that month alone the provinces showed up as follows: Prince Edward Island, 181-6; Nova Scotia, 213-6; New Brunswick, 217-9; Quebec, 276-5; Ontario, 276-8; Manitoba, 238-6; Saskatchewan, 199-7; Alberta, 237-3; British Columbia, 259-3. The average for Canada for that month was 245-4. Now, then, in relationship the fact that the national income for agriculture decreased about 12 points last year is rather significant. In round figures it means that in the last month of 1950 the agricultural income of the province of Quebec increased 16 points while in the same month in Manitoba there was a decrease of 17 points, and in Saskatchewan a decrease of 26 points. So that it shows the trend throughout the nation. These are both government journals from which I have been quoting. One of them is produced by the Department of Agriculture-I am referring to the Economic Annalist-and the other by the Bank of Canada. I do not think anyone disputes those figures.
These figures are proof that agriculture is slipping in these last few years in the matter of income. The survey made in central Manitoba is proof that the small family farm operator is still up against a pretty	tough proposition.	All the
statements which have been made in the house and on the hustings during the Easter recess are not borne out by the facts as set forth either by the Department of Agriculture itself or by the Bank of Canada. I thought this was the time and place to give those figures and to make the necessary correction, because when I was home at Easter I heard such a great amount of agitation among the people and, I will admit, a great deal of confused thinking and discussion. That is not to be wondered at. As I travelled on the trains and busses, and on the street ears in

Supply-Agriculture
Winnipeg I found that people, whether they were farmers or not, were talking about a previous debate on a very important matter connected with agriculture that had taken place just before the Easter recess. Those people said they were entitled to be confused in their discussion, and they did not think it would be any worse than the discussion that took place in the house between the ministers and members of parliament for a couple of weeks before the Easter recess.
I want to tell the committee that, at least in the prairie provinces, there is great concern about the plight of the agriculturist, on the average. I am not denying the fact that some agricultural operators with modern equipment are getting by pretty well. But the great majority of the farmers, those on the small holdings, as is borne out by this booklet from the Department of Agriculture, are having a very tough time of it. Many of them are not able to provide a living for their families from their farms.
I wish to put those facts on the record. I know we will wait expectantly for a statement from the minister before these estimates are passed as to what agriculture may expect in the near future, in these most harrowing times with which many farmers are having to contend right now. I wished also to put this information on the record because there are many people who blame the high cost of living on the farmer and, in the majority of cases, that is not the situation. I wish to make it clear, if possible, that the farmer is not to blame in many instances for the greatly increased cost of living.
At another time I referred to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune dealing with prices in Minneapolis and Winnipeg. I did not go into detail because I thought it would be out of order. I have not the chart before me now. However, one hon. member from Saskatchewan found fault with me for criticizing what the farmers were receiving in Winnipeg. The point borne out by the article was that there is something wrong in this country in connection with processing and cost to the consumer, as compared with what farm producers get.
For most of the commodities referred to in the article appearing in the Tribune the farm producer in the United States near Minneapolis was receiving more for his raw products than was the farmer in western Canada. Yet when the farm or urban wife over there went to purchase a processed article she was able to do so at a cheaper price in Minneapolis than it could be purchased in Winnipeg.
That is the point I am trying to make. I have repeated it in two or three years and given statistics to prove it-that there is

something radically wrong in so far as the middleman in this country is concerned. While over there the farmer is much better paid for his raw materials; his wife-and the same applies to the urban wife-can purchase many of those articles for less than they can be bought in this country. That is a condition which should be rectified to some extent.
I hope that after some discussion the minister will give us some lead as to what agriculture may expect in the future. Let me say that agriculture can be depended upon to produce for this nation and to have a surplus of many goods for the underfed nations of other countries. It is most important at a time like this, when the production of essentials is so greatly needed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I was sorry to see a reduction in the estimates for the Department of Agriculture. Even after the minister's explanation I was sorry to note a reduction of $12 million in the estimates for agriculture during the current year. I know that in view of our defence program every possible saving will have to be made in the various departments but I do think that a healthful agricultural industry, geared to full production, should and must be an important part of our defence program.
I do not think it is a service to agriculture to be cutting the estimates of the minister's department by about 15 per cent. I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Souris, that agriculture at this time faces many grave problems. While the prices for many agricultural products are high, nevertheless agricultural costs are increasing by leaps and bounds. Looking at our prospective markets for the future and our available markets today it does not seem at all certain that agricultural markets are in any sense guaranteed.
I am sorry that as a nation we have not been able to hold the British market for bacon or apples, or other important farm commodities. It is true that, so far, we are getting by through utilizing the Canadian and the American markets to a greater extent. But it does seem to me that the British market, which has been our best outlet in the past, is of great importance for the future, and every effort should be made to regain our position there.
One point I would emphasize, and which I feel is a real threat to Canadian agriculture both in the east and on the prairies, is the great difficulty western farmers are now having in marketing their grain. The eastern producer is interested in getting western oats, barley and wheat. The government is paying a considerable amount of money by way of freight assistance. But before this grain

can be of value to agriculture in eastern Canada it has to be moved from the prairie provinces to the lakehead, and by boats to ports in Ontario and other markets in the world. At this time we are faced with the most severe box car shortage in our history; and unless something is done, and done soon, to solve the box car problem on the prairies, we are going to find millions and millions of bushels of grain rotting in the bins, because much of that grain is damp or tough.
It was promised by the Minister of Transport that this serious agricultural problem would be dealt with. The minister assured us that the railways were co-operating and that no stone would be left unturned to improve the situation, even if our Canadian box cars had to be sent back empty from the United States. That statement was made on February 19, and just three days before statistics were published indicating that
29.000	Canadian box cars were in the United States. Approximately a month after that statement was made, on March 15, the date of the last available statistics, there were
4.000	more Canadian box cars in the United States, or a total of 33,000. The net position of the excess of Canadian box cars in the United States increased within that one month period by 2,400 even when we were told that this serious situation was going to be corrected and dealt with.
The Saskatchewan wheat pool estimate that in order to move grain from the prairies to eastern Canada between now and the end of the crop year 1,200 box cars will be required daily. Last year there were only 600 box cars used daily, but this year it looks as though we are not going to have even 600 cars daily unless something is done about this serious situation. We need twice as many box cars as we had last year and we have not nearly as many cars as we had a year ago.
The Saskatchewan wheat pool has called upon the government to appoint a controller to handle the box car situation and to see that our Canadian box cars are returned from the United States, I remember a few years ago when the problem was the other way around and we were retaining United States box cars. If my memory serves me correctly a Mr. Eric Johnston was appointed controller and he placed an embargo on United States cars coming to Canada. The result was that United States cars in Canada were soon sent home. I think it is time the government appointed a controller and put an embargo on Canadian box cars going to the United States in order to bring about a return of Canadian box cars from that country.
Supply-Agriculture
The Minister of Agriculture is a man of considerable ability in a great many ways and I am sure that he would have some influence on the government in seeing that something was done about this matter. I am taking advantage of this first opportunity since the announcement made by the Saskatchewan wheat pool to ask the minister to use his influence with his colleagues in the cabinet in order to have this shortage of box cars corrected, and to ensure that we have sufficient box cars between now and July 31, the end of the crop year, to move all the grain off the farms to the head of the lakes, to the eastern feeders and to the export markets of the world so that this food, which is such a valuable commodity at this time, will not be allowed to spoil on our western farms.
I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture could give the committee some idea as to what the government is doing to remedy this situation. Another statement by the Minister of Transport, if it does no more good than his statement on February 19, will only result in a greater number of Canadian box
cars going to the United States. That minister told us that the problem was going to be dealt with, that not a stone would be left unturned to see that we had sufficient box cars to handle the shipment of Canadian grain. Nothing has resulted from that statement except that the situation is much worse. Therefore I ask the Minister of Agriculture to tell us what the government is likely to do in order that grain on western farms may be brought to market and not be in danger of spoiling this spring.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, may I say
that I very rarely have found the farmers in my constituency so gloomy and disposed to a sort of peculiar kind of despair as they are at the present time. Not only are they facing the difficulties which have been discussed already, but the income tax which is being levied on our farming population is becoming destructive of productive courage and initiative. I do not propose to discuss this matter at any great length at the present time, but if we are going to maintain our agricultural productive machine in working order we shall simply have to do a whole lot more than shrug our shoulders concerning some of these matters which are destroying the morale of the agricultural population of western Canada. I do not know whether the same thing is taking place in eastern Canada.
Having said that, may I turn to another matter about which I am sure the minister has heard. The farmers in my constituency are positive that it will be the merest kind of justice to them if between now and an


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order, I do not want to interfere with the discussion but this matter does not come under my estimates at all. The general discussion on the first item of the estimates of a department should be confined to what the estimates cover. The matter under discussion now is one which would be dealt with either under the estimates of the Department of Finance or under the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, certainly not in the estimates of this- department.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the minister himself said- at the opening of his remarks that it was customary to allow a wide range of latitude on the first item.


James Garfield Gardiner: On agricultural estimates, not on somebody else's.


John Horne Blackmore: This matter certainly
applies directly to agriculture. Let no one ever question that for a minute.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I should like a ruling. The question that is being discussed does not come under these estimates in any way at all.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The point of ord-er is well taken. The question has already been decided by the house, and- there is nothing in the estimates concerning this matter.


John Horne Blackmore: There is plenty to talk about without going further, but I will just -say that the result of the whole set-up has

been that the wheat growers paid directly as a subsidy to the consumers of Canada 30 cents a bushel on every bushel of wheat that the Canadian consumers used throughout that period. There have been criticisms from eastern Canada and other parts. Therefore I urge every single member of the house to take into consideration that that fact actually occurred. We will leave that aspect of it. When you take 30 cents a bushel-and I am passing rapidly to bow to your decision-on 160 million bushels you have $48 million, and that is what all the farmers of western Canada believe ought to be given as the bare minimum remuneration for that most astonishing procedure.
There are five main considerations which I believe ought to be borne in mind in- dealing with the problem of the farmers of western Canada. In the first place-and this again touches on the first point but it will be the last one that will touch on the question of the $48 million-the $65 million was only part -payment of the amount of money which was absolutely -stolen by the government from Canadian farmers raising wheat, and "stolen" is the word. No communist ever did any worse than to seize vast hundreds of millions of dollars from producers, and there is no question, that it was done. The matter can be established; and will be established just as- soon as- this question is in such order that the Minister of Agriculture cannot object.
Western wheat growers have paid huge sums in taxes. When we were discussing the $65 -million item not very long ago you would have thought that every single dollar to pay that amount was coming out of Ontario.


Mr. Cardiff:: A lot of it did, just about half.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course it did but you must understand that a lot of it came out of the west. In a few minutes I am going to give some facts which are just as strong as the ones the hon. member for Souris gave.


An hon. Member:: How about Temiscouata?


John Horne Blackmore: We will come to Temiscouata in due time. I tell you, Mr. -Chairman, that what has happened out there is a matter that simply must be recognized. If we have got to stay here until next December to get everybody in the -house to understand this matter we will stay here until we do, because we westerners simply cannot be kicked around the way we are being kicked around by people who do not understand our problem.
The next point developed by the hon. member for Souris was well taken. The farmers are not well off notwithstanding the propaganda that has been spread abroad

throughout the country. The farmers once again, Mr. Chairman-and I presume this is completely in order-are being forced right now to subsidize the people of Canada, Great Britain and thirty-seven other countries right now to the extent of 37 cents a bushel on every bushel of wheat consumed in those countries.
The Canadian farmer is much worse off than the farmer in the United States, as the hon. member for Souris pointed out. I propose to give some facts to bear out the statements I have made which hon. members can read at their convenience. Perhaps I shall be out of order if I read the first one, Mr. Chairman. It is a statement by the Alberta wheat pool on March 16, 1951, bearing upon the question of the necessity of the $48 million being paid. If that is out of order I simply will not read it now but I will do so at a later time.
Let me come to the matter of taxation. I want to say that since I have been in this house I have never objected to any favour given to any part of the Dominion of Canada. I have always supported hon. members in their contentions. Dear me, if they are suffering losses in the production of their apples I would be the first one to support something to help them, and the same with fishing or any other product of the Dominion of Canada.
If the producers of the goods that make Canada what she is are suffering, and therefore unable to produce those goods, that fact is one of the most serious considerations for the whole of the Dominion of Canada whose wealth and well-being are directly related to the production of goods by every group of producers throughout the nation. When I speak directly to some members from other parts of the country-and I hope I do not have to-I trust they will remember that I have been here fifteen years and I have seen the Canadian parliament in operation for all of those fifteen years.


An hon. Member:: Too long.


John Horne Blackmore: I realize it is too long for some hon. members. They would give a lot if they could get me out of here but my constituents have not felt that way. Here is an article written by Chester A. Bloom, and I imagine easterners will accept this man because he seems to be a quite popular and respected writer. The article is to be found in the Lethbridge Herald for March 24, and must have appeared in a great many other papers. The heading is "The Prairie Farmers Pay". The article reads:
During the five-year wheat pool including the four-year Canada-U.K. wheat agreement, while selling their wheat to Britain at cut-rate prices, the prairie farmers paid 77 per cent of all the farm
Supply-Agriculture
income taxes in Canada. During the four years of the U.K. wheat agreement, 1946-49 inclusive, the prairie farmers paid 81 per cent of all the farm income taxes paid in Canada.
These are the very men to whom you are giving $65 million now.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkion):: May I ask a question? Who hires Chester A. Bloom?


John Horne Blackmore: You may ask all the questions you desire.


Alan Carl Stewart: Who hires Chester A. Bloom?


John Horne Blackmore: You may ask all the questions you desire.


Alan Carl Stewart: That is a straight question. Who hires Chester A. Bloom?


John Horne Blackmore: How in the name of common sense do you imagine I know, or anybody else? The hon. member's question if it is anything at all is a direct insult to Chester A. Bloom. It presupposes that Chester A. Bloom will not tell the truth. The hon. member had better be careful to get his facts right before he challenges the figures that are given here. Meanwhile, may I tell the hon. member that is one of the cheapest questions I have ever been asked on the floor of the house, and especially coming from a man from the prairies.


Alan Carl Stewart: On a point of order, it is not a cheap question.


John Horne Blackmore: It is.


Alan Carl Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is in order for hon. members to raise points of order in this house. The hon. member is just making a speech for his constituents and I am getting rather tired of it.


John Horne Blackmore: You will get a lot more tired. Let us hear the point of order.


Alan Carl Stewart: The point of order is that you cannot cast a reflection upon an hon. member.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member cast the reflection upon himself; I cannot do any better than he did. As I said a moment ago, the amount paid in those four years by the western wheat growers was $48,254,000 out of a total of $59,489,000 paid in farm income taxes from coast to coast in Canada. I continue quoting from Chester Bloom's article:
The farmers of the three prairie provinces were getting gypped two ways-their wheat was sold at bargain prices while they carried more than three-quarters of the farm tax load in Canada.
The answer is easy-their wheat was sold by a government board. The government tax collectors knew every cent of their income-not so with all

Supply-Agriculture
the other farmers of Canada. No wonder governments like handling farm products through boards.
The 1950 farm tax returns are not yet available. But the prairie farmers have been paying an average of more than $12 million a year in farm income taxes. Their 1950 taxes will surely be up to the average so, during the five-year pool into which the government is making a $65 million final payment, the prairie farmers will have paid taxes in that period within $5 million of the $65 million.
It is quite obvious why the government did not use these figures to rebut some of the $65 million criticisms. It is one of the big national tax scandals of Canada.
Remember, this is an easterner talking, and he is talking so all easterners may hear him.
Here are some of the figures culled from a return furnished February 22 last by the Department of National Revenue answering a question asked in the house by H. R. Argue, M.P., Assiniboia:
In 1946, the total farm income taxes collected in Canada were $9,843,000 of which prairie farmers, largely wheat growers, paid $8,143,000 or 82-5 per cent.
1947-	Total Canadian farm income taxes collected, $13,581,000; prairie farmers paid $10,567,000 or 77 per cent.
1948-	Total Canadian farm income taxes collected, $18,095,000; three prairie provinces paid farm income taxes of $14,168,000 or 78 per cent.


Heber Harold Hatfield: We didn't make any money in the east.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, remember that this is not a sign that they were making money. After they paid their income taxes and looked after all the other details most of these people had no money left.
1949-	Total Canadian farm income taxes collected $17,970,000; three prairie provinces farm taxes, $15,385,000 or 85 per cent.
The only provinces which came anywhere near approaching these prairie records of farm income taxes were the immensely wealthy farming province of Ontario whose farmers in 1949 paid $1,940,000 in farm income taxes while British Columbia farmers paid $544,000. Quebec farmers paid only $51,000. The smaller populated maritime provinces that year paid farm income taxes of; Prince Edward Island $4,000; Nova Scotia, $33,000; New Brunswick, $11,000; and Newfoundland, $2,000.
Even before the Canadian wheat board had records of prairie farmers' wheat receipts, however, the three prairie provinces were furnishing since 1941 more than 50 per cent of the total farm income taxes collected in Canada. Here are the records 1941 to 1945 inclusive:
1941-Total farm income taxes collected, $1,592,000; prairie payments, $860,000; 1942-total farm income taxes paid, $3,372,000; prairie payments, $2,045,000; 1943-total for Canada, $11,630,000; prairies paid $8,563,000; 1944-total for Canada, $20,482,000; prairies paid, $16,838,000; 1945-total for Canada, $13,392,000; prairies paid $8,047,000.
I guess the hon. member who wanted to ask me a question feels a little unnecessary now. I do not need any authority attached to those figures; they stand on their own feet.
There are other difficulties still, in addition to the points made by the hon. member for

Souris. As I was saying, there exists a general idea that the western farmers are well off. The statement by the hon, member for Souris indicated that general impression. I would commend the admirable work of the Minister of Justice in giving those very speeches to which objection was taken, because he faced the whole situation honestly and straightforwardly and showed that Britain was not in any way responsible for the difficulties in which the prairie farmers find, themselves. That is a great thing, because if we can find out just who is responsible we shall know upon whom to call to discharge the responsibility.
Now I should like to point out just how well off the farmers were with this $1.83 a bushel. The Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out-and this is not intended as any reflection on him-that $1.83 was probably the very best payment the farmers had received; and I think the Minister of Justice pointed this out also. Let us see. I am quoting from the Searle Grain Company letter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: I hear a lot of silly
cackling, but the Searle Grain Company can give accurate figures as well as anyone else. They interpret the figures in their own way and I have no sympathy with the way that company interprets the figures.


Alan Carl Stewart: I am going to
raise another point of order. You cannot read the Searle grain report in this house, because it changes every week, as every farmer knows. I am getting tired of these constant reports. If you agree with the Searle Grain Company, say so.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member must
be quite ill tonight; he does not seem able to get things straight in his mind. I think he will be quite surprised when he reads his remarks in Hansard tomorrow.


Alan Carl Stewart: I am raising the point of order.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member is quite
in order.


John Horne Blackmore: I am reading now from
the Searle Grain Company letter of March 28, 1951, on page 2:
Some people are saying that prairie wheat growers must be quite well off because they have received for five years an average price for their wheat of $1.83, which is a higher price, it is alleged, than has been registered in the history of grain marketing for any five years.
These speakers forget one important fact, that farmers do not live on price, but only on what price

will buy, and that the Canadian dollar has suffered a serious depreciation in purchasing power in recent years, to the extent, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics publication entitled "Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers, Basis 1935-39," that $1.83 is worth today no more than approximately 86 cents, and that $1.83 has had on the five years average a purchasing power of only $1.03 in terms of the purchasing power in 1935-39. The 61 years of recorded official grain prices reveal that there have been only two periods of five years when the price farmers received averaged as low a purchasing power, on the 1935-39 basis, as the $1.83 has had for the past five years. For the majority of all the 61 years the price received by farmers has given them a purchasing power for a bushel of wheat considerably higher than the purchasing power for the last five years at the price of $1.83.
That puts an entirely different light on the $1.83 a bushel, does it not? Then I go on to one more paragraph:
The initial price of $1.60, which farmers are now receiving under the international wheat agreement has, on a 1935-39 basis, a purchasing power of only 75 cents. This is the real reason why farmers today are so gravely discontented, for they find they simply cannot pay their high-cost 1951 bills with this depreciated Canadian currency and with the present price of wheat.
Now, I am quite sure that even the member who has interrupted me twice will realize that his points were very poorly taken when he reads this.


Alan Carl Stewart: The member who interrupted wants to ask again whether you believe these Searle grain reports that you have read.


John Horne Blackmore: Let me ask the hon. member, who is so foolishly irresponsible he is making himself silly-


Alan Carl Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. No member in this house can say that another member makes himself silly. I have yet to watch a sillier member than the hon. gentleman.


John Horne Blackmore: If the word "silly" is too strong-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I wish to say that the discussion should relate to the item under consideration.


John Horne Blackmore: I was just going to answer the hon. member who raised the question, and whose information concerning this matter seems to be utterly deficient for a man representing a western constituency, and I am asking if he questions the figures which are given by the dominion bureau of statistics publication, "Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services used by Farmers, basis 1935-39". I do not think he will, but if he does it will make him look foolish, which is just as bad as silly.
Supply-Agriculture
Now, the next important matter is one which was developed by the member for Souris, and that is the comparative prices which farmers received in Canada as related to the prices which farmers in the United States received.
I am reading again from the Searle Grain Company report of March 28, 1951, on the last page. Once more I believe we shall find these figures are authentic. It reads as follows:
According to the United States government publication, Agricultural Prices, dated February 28, 1951, on page 8, the farmers of North Dakota received on February 15 at their country elevators for the average quality of wheat they hauled $2.24 a bushel compared with the price received by Canadian farmers at their average country points and for the average grade they delivered of $1.20. The Canadian average price is based on initial payment of $1.60 Fort William and for the average grades between No. 4 and No. 5. This prairie wheat, however, is being sold by the wheat board at $1.88 for No. 1 northern . .


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, my hon. friend says that he is giving authentic figures. Every member from western Canada at least knows that the farmers have not been selling wheat for $1.20.


John Horne Blackmore: I did not say $1.20.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is down to 83 cents.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall read the details again since some of them might have confused the minister. I shall read the whole thing.
According to the United States government publication. Agricultural Prices, . . .
If these people are wrong, all right. I have always found these people to be correct, although I do not agree with them as to-


Mr. Dewar:: Then why call them to witness?


John Horne Blackmore: If you would just let me-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


Austin Edwin Dewar: An hon. member cannot call someone to witness if he is not going to rely on him.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member will cool down by tomorrow. The fact is, I do not agree with the Searle grain people as to-


Austin Edwin Dewar: Then do not call them to witness.


John Horne Blackmore: -their belief that we should sell our grain on the open market. I do not agree with them at all in that respect. However, I have never found their figures to be in error and I have been dealing with them for fifteen years.

Supply-Agriculture


Austin Edwin Dewar: I have been dealing with them for twenty years.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member would just let a person speak and say what he has to say, the hon. member would' not make himself look foolish. The minister would like to hear this, so I shall read it again.
According to the United States government publication, Agricultural Prices, dated February 28, 1951, on page 8, the farmers of North Dakota received on February 15 at their country elevators for the average quality of wheat they hauled $2.24 a bushel compared with the price received by Canadian farmers at their average country points and for the average grade they delivered of $1.20.


James Garfield Gardiner: Everyone knows that is not correct; that is the advance payment on wheat, it is not the price of the wheat delivered.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister is out of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is only part of the price.


John Horne Blackmore: That is correct, but the advance payment is what the farmer has to live on.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what the Searle report says, so what the Searle report says is not correct.


John Horne Blackmore: We will leave the minister to fight that out with them. This is based on the average grades, and when the minister examines the statement he will find he has not much to complain about.
The Canadian average price is based on initial payment of $1.60 Fort William and for the average grades between No. 4 and No. 5. This prairie wheat, however, is being sold by the wheat board at $1.88 for No. 1 northern, which might leave another 28 cents to come later as a final payment at the end of this crop year. Even so, however, Canadian farmers will still be receiving only $1.48 at country elevators, compared with the $2.24 being paid to North Dakota farmers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to go any further into this matter tonight, but certainly at a future time I intend to go into it. As I said the other day in response to a speech by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, those farmers who went into that great Palliser Triangle area some sixty years ago, and who have struggled against adverse conditions of numerous types for more than half a century, in season and out of season, those men who by sheer courage and selfsacrifice have made from that desert area, which Captain Palliser declared was unfit for farming, one of the most productive areas in Canada, are deserving of credit and aid. As witness of that fact let me cite the figure of over 1,425 million bushels of grain from western Canada sold during the time of the British-Canada wheat agreement-and that is the area that Captain Palliser said would not be fit for human habitation!

The point I am endeavouring to establish is this. If we are wise in Canada we will lend these people a helping hand so that they can roll out to us again the hundreds of millions of bushels of grain. All they are asking at this time is that they be returned some of the hundreds of millions of dollars which have been deliberately stolen from them by government policy. Anyone who laughs about that just emphasizes his own ignorance, because it is true, as the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Acadia has shown. As I say, I am closing my remarks tonight, but this is not the last I am going to say in advocacy of the proposition that the dominion government at an early date contribute $48 million more to the pool fund for the farmers of western Canada.


Heber Harold Hatfield: When the minister makes his statement, I should like him to tell the house why he allowed the potato growers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to sell their potatoes below the cost of production. They were sold at practically half the cost of production. During the fall and most of the winter months, up till yesterday, they were sold below the cost of production in spite of the Agricultural Prices Support Act that was passed in this house in 1944. In 1947 the minister stated in this house that during the transition period he did not intend to allow any agricultural product to go below the cost of production, and he was not going to ask any farmer to cut down his production.
The potato business in the Saint John river valley and in New Brunswick has been built up over a period of 45 years. During the last war we sold potatoes under a ceiling. The farmers of that section sold their potatoes from $2 to $2.50 a barrel, when they could have sold them at $5 and $6 a barrel; but they kept within the ceiling price.
When the Agricultural Prices Support Act was put in force in 1944 we were promised that we would be protected on account of selling at ceiling prices during the period from peace to war, or as long as that act was in force. That act is still in force, and yet this fall potatoes were sold at as low as 20 cents a bushel. Most of the farmers who sold potatoes at that low price were veterans who took up land under the Veterans Land Act, or young farmers just starting in to farm. There was no protection for them. They were forced to sell their potatoes for as low as 20 cents a bushel, which is one-third of the cost of production or less. No action was taken by the government, although there was a committee of the marketing board and a committee of the

provincial government set up. We had delegations come to Ottawa and wait upon the Department of Agriculture no fewer than three times during that period. They never got any satisfaction or any relief whatever until they came here just before the Easter recess.
Then there was some plan worked out. No one knows yet what the plan is, only that the government has guaranteed on potatoes delivered to the starch factories a price of 22 cents a bushel, not over 22 cents a bushel. They do not guarantee that they will pay over that. They can pay under that. It will depend upon what the marketing boards of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick set as the price. If they set a price below 44 cents a bushel then the government will pay less than 22 cents a bushel, but the government through an arrangement with the provincial government, I believe, is going to pay the farmers if the marketing board price that the two provinces set is 44 cents a bushel. If it is that figure then they will pay 22 cents a bushel, or half of the 44 cents a bushel. Forty-four cents a bushel is the set price of the marketing board at the present time.
The farmer has to grade these potatoes, and they must be No. 1 potatoes. Twenty-five per cent of each load hauled to the starch factories can be No. 1 small. They do not get paid for the potatoes when they deliver them to the factory. The factory pays the 22 cents a bushel that they agreed to pay during the month of April, but the government gives them a participation certificate. I have heard a lot of talk in this house from the western members about participation certificates, but I never thought we would come to them in eastern Canada. I have heard discussions in this house about income tax. Our potato growers are not worrying this year about the income tax. They are *worrying about the sheriff coming in and putting them out of doors and forcing them into bankruptcy.
Potato growers in New Brunswick want whatever the government is going to give them, or the provincial government, or whatever government it is going to be. Whatever plan was made between the two governments they want it now because the banks are forcing them-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question? Are
not the two starch factories in New Brunswick going to pay the farmers 60 cents a barrel? As I understand, that works out to 22 cents a bushel.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Yes.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Why is my hon. friend
giving the impression that the government is going to pay it? Why is he giving the impression that they are not going to be paid when the potatoes are delivered?


Heber Harold Hatfield: The starch factories pay
their 22 cents a bushel when the potatoes are delivered, but the government's 22 cents a bushel, which they have agreed to pay, is not going to be paid. They receive only a certificate for their 22 cents a bushel until the end of the season. It may be paid before the provincial election in Prince Edward Island. I do not know. That is all they are getting today. The government part of the bargain is a 22-cent participation certificate, being 22 cents a bushel. That certificate is no earthly good to the farmer. The farmers cannot take them to the bank and pay their notes for last year's fertilizer, and they are being forced into bankruptcy every day in our province and in the potato district.
This potato industry was built up as a $20 million industry in the province of New Brunswick. It has been built up over a period of years. The government has done very little toward the building up of that industry. The farmers and the shippers have spent their own money building up that industry, and now it is gone. They have sold their potatoes not only this year but for three years now at less than the cost of production. According to the act and according to the letters I received from Dr. Shaw last spring that was not supposed to happen. He said that the Agricultural Prices Support Act was supposed to help the farmers. This is what he said:
I would like to point out that the Agricultural Prices Support Act states:	"That the board shall
endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture . . . and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns for agriculture and those from other occupations."


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. It being eleven o'clock, shall I report progress?


Heber Harold Hatfield: I shall have something more to say about it later.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would be good enough to revert to motions to allow me to submit the names of the members composing two special committees?

Special Committees VETERANS AFFAIRS



NAMES OF MEMBERS COMPRISING COMMITTEE

William Gilbert Weir: That the following members comprise the special committee on veterans affairs as provided for in the resolution passed by the house on Wednesday, April 4, last:
Messrs. Balcom, Bennett, Blair, Brooks, Carroll, Carter, Corry, Croll, Cruickshank, Gauthier (Port-neuf), George, Gillis, Goode, Green, Harkness, Henderson, Herridge, Langlois (Gaspe), Larson, Len-nard, McMillan, McWilliam, Mott, Mutch, Pearkes, Quelch, Roberge, Stewart (Yorkton), Thomas, Weaver, White (Hastings-Peterborough).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Gilbert Weir: That the following members comprise the special committee on the Indian Act, as provided for in the resolution passed by the house on Monday, April 2, last:
Messrs. Applewhaite, Ashbourne, Black (Chat-eauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie), Blackmore, Blue, Boucher, Brown (Essex West), Bryce, Cauchon, Charlton, Diefenbaker, Fulton, Gibson, Harkness, Hatfield, Jutras, Little, MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria), Murray (Cariboo), Noseworthy, Richard (Gloucester), Smith (Queens-Shelburne), Simmons, Valois, Welboum, Whiteside, Wood.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

James Garfield Gardiner: On Monday we will move to go into supply. When in committee we will call four departments, and then proceed with consideration, first of the estimates: of the Department of Transport and, secondly, the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 9, 1951